The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.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: Jo-Ann Chabot
The claimant occupied a GS-12 position until 1991, when he accepted a GS-11 position because of a reduction-in-force. He received grade and pay retention for two years under 5 U.S.C. 5362 and 5363. Between 1991 and 1997, the claimant received two temporary promotions to GS-12 positions. In 1997, the claimant was promoted from GS-11, step 10 to GS-13, step 2. The claimant believes that the agency should have set his pay at a higher step within the GS-13 grade level.
The agency, in an administrative report submitted to OPM, explained in detail the reasons for its action in setting the claimant's pay at GS-13, step 2, rather than setting the claimant's pay at a higher step of the GS-13 grade level. We agree with, and adopt, the agency's analysis as stated in its administrative report. Accordingly, this claim is denied for the reasons stated in the agency's administrative report.
This settlement is final. No further administrative review is available within the Office of Personnel Management. Nothing in this settlement limits the claimant's right to bring an action in an appropriate United States Court.