The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
OPM Contact: Joann Charleston
An employee of the [Agency] requests that we review his claim for pay retention.
The employee, a [position] (GS-14), submitted a medical hardship request for transfer to a [position], GS-14 position or to a [position], GS-12 position. The Division staff approved his request and offered him a [position], GS-12 position in a job offer notice dated February 5, 1996. The employee indicated his acceptance of the position (GS-12, step 10) by signing and dating the notice on February 9, 1996. The change became effective February 18, 1996.
Subsequently, on February 23, 1996, the employee made an inquiry concerning his eligibility for pay retention. Personnels response to him was that he was not eligible for pay retention because he did not meet any of the pay retention eligibility criteria outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations or in their grade and pay retention order (FAA Order 3550.11A). The claim was forwarded here for further review.
Title 5, CFR, section 536.104(a) lists certain situations in which there is mandatory entitlement to pay retention. None of these situations appear to apply to this case. Pay retention is not applicable when an employee is reduced in grade or pay at the employees request. 5 CFR 536.105(a)(3).
FAA Order 3550.11A, paragraph 9d(7) states that the agency has determined that pay retention shall be extended to any eligible employee whose rate of basic pay would otherwise be reduced because the employee no longer meets a specific condition or requirement ofemployment (including medical standards) established by the agencyor OPM.In the present case, we note that the employee does not meet any ofthe pay retention eligibility criteria. The file indicates that thetransfer was voluntary and not the result of a management decision. Also the Deputy determined that theemployee would not have been found to be medically disqualified.Accordingly, the claim is denied.