The Federal Government will Become America's Model Employer for the 21st Century.
Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People.
Review the new 2014 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Handbook
Answering your questions about Healthcare and Insurance
Manage your retirement online.
Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
OPM’s Human Resources Solutions organization can help your agency answer this critically important question.
Developing senior leaders in the U.S. Government through Leadership for a Democratic Society, Custom Programs and Interagency Courses.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.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: Murray M. Meeker
The claimant is employed by the [agency], in [xxx]. While the
claimant is a member of a collective bargaining unit and her claim
was originally filed as a grievance, the agency has advised the
claimant that her claim is not covered by a negotiated grievance
procedure. The claim is, therefore, subject to review by OPM.
See Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1425, 1453
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990). For the reasons discussed
herein, the claim is denied.
The claimant reported that in January of 1997, she was assigned
additional duties and advised that she would submitted for
promotion from a GS-5 to a GS-6 Secretary. While the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) denied the reclassification request, the
[agency] granted the request effective June 26, 1998. The claimant
asserts that if her position had been evaluated correctly and in a
timely manner, the effective date would have been much sooner than
June 26, 1998. On this basis, the claimant seeks back pay for the
period between October 1, 1997 and June 25, 1998.
Even assuming, arguendo, that an earlier evaluation
would have resulted in an earlier effective date for the favorable
classification action, the claimant may not be awarded back pay. It
is well settled that employees are not entitled to back pay for
periods of misclassification. 5 U.S.C. 5596(b)(3).
See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400
(1976) and Erlyn D. Felder,
B-202685, August 17, 1982.
This settlement is final. No further administrative review is
available within OPM. Nothing in this settlement limits the
employee's right to bring an action in an appropriate United States