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.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.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, a civilian employee with the [agency] at [xxx],
claims that his pay was improperly set after he was promoted from a
GS-5 position to a GS-6 position. While the claimant is a member of
a collective bargaining unit and his claim was originally filed as
a grievance, the agency has advised the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) that the 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 factual circumstances concerning this claim are not in
dispute. On July 19, 1998, the employee was promoted from a GS-5
position with retained pay to a GS-6 position. To set the
employee's pay after the promotion, the agency added the monetary
equivalent of two steps, i.e., $1,332, to the GS-5, step 10,
salary, i.e., $25,963, for a total of $27,295. Because this total
fell between step 7 and step 8 on the GS-6 salary schedule, the
employee's salary was set at the higher step, step 8, of the GS-6
The claimant asserts that two steps should have been added to
his actual pay, $26,713, which would have placed him between step 8
and step 9, and thereby entitled him to the higher step. The
claimant's computation is not permitted by law. The two step
increase amount may not be added to the claimant's actual pay,
i.e., to the claimant's retained rate. 5 U.S.C. 5334(b).(1)
See Caesar A. Langston, B-247190, June 4, 1992; Betty
J. Beasley, B-197025, August 3, 1981; and Florence N.
Ontai, B-172195, May 16, 1974. Accordingly, the claim is
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
Subsection (b)(A) of section 5334 expressly provides that if an
employee on retained pay is promoted, he is entitled to basic pay
at a rate two steps above the rate which he would be
receiving if the retained pay provisions in 5 U.S.C.
Chapter 53, Subchapter VI, were not applicable to him.