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.
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The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.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
By letter dated November 4, 1997, a former employee of the
[agency], requested that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
reconsider its decision dated October 29, 1997, in which OPM
determined that the former employee had been subject to a
negotiated grievance procedure under a collective bargaining
agreement, and that as a consequence, OPM lacked jurisdiction to
review his claims.
In correspondence dated September 24, 1997, the former employee
described two claims. In his first claim, the former employee
alleged that in 1991, he was "supposed to have" received a career
conditional appointment rather than a term appointment with the
[agency's] Area Office, and that as a result of this error, he was
entitled to missing back pay and benefits, including Thrift Savings
Plan and other retirement benefits.
By letter dated January 5, 1998, [agency's] Area Office reported
that when the former employee received his term appointment on June
2, 1991, he was subject to a negotiated grievance procedure under a
collective bargaining agreement. In accordance with this
information, OPM confirms its prior determination that it lacks
authority to review the former employee's first claim.
In his second claim, the former employee complained that during
the period when he had been employed by the Indian Agency in 1994
and 1995, he had been erroneously denied step increases, and that
while the [agency] had subsequently granted the increases to him,
he had never been fully compensated.
OPM was initially advised by [agency's] Area Office that the
former employee had been subject to a negotiated grievance
procedure during the period of his employment at the [agency].
However, on December 23, 1997, the [agency's] Area Office provided
OPM with an Administrative Report in which it expressed regret that
it had misadvised OPM concerning the former employee's membership
in a collective bargaining unit during this period.
Although the [agency's] Area Office acknowledged that the former
employee had not been subject to a collective bargaining agreement
at that time, the [agency's] Area Office denied the former
employee's claim that he was entitled to additional benefits and
back pay. As explained in the Administrative Report, on January 27,
1994, the former employee was notified by the Acting District
Officer that he was postponing the former employee's within-grade
increase (WGI) from GS-9, step 1, to GS-9, step 2, but that if the
former employee's performance improved by April 3, 1994, the WGI
would be granted.
On April 5, 1994, the former employee's immediate supervisor
certified that the former employee's performance was not at an
acceptable level of competence. However, during the former
employee's scheduled review in July 1994, his immediate supervisor
determined that the claimant's performance was fully successful.
The Administrative Report continues that in accordance with the
supervisor's determination, on July 11, 1995, and August 14, 1997,
[agency] took all of the necessary corrective actions.
Accordingly, former employee's second claim has been mooted. A
claim is rendered moot where relief has been granted that
completely and irrevocably eradicates the effects of the alleged
violation. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631-632
(1979); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316
(1974); and Indiana Employment
Security Division v. Burney, 409 U.S. 540 (1973).