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.
Find out more about Federal compensation throughout your career and around the world.
Staffing to align with your agency's mission
Review the new 2014 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Handbook
Answering your questions about Healthcare and Insurance
Congress approved a cost of living increase for Federal retirees.
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The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.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, an employee of the [agency], asserts that he is
entitled to backpay for the period from March 3, 1997 to March 15,
1998, when he was detailed to perform the duties of a higher graded
position. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is
To qualify for promotion to a higher graded position and
backpay, an employee must satisfy the minimum qualification
requirements for the position. See Barbara A.
Ralston, B-200748, February 3, 1981; Darryl E. Laxo,
B-196227, May 15, 1980; and Glen D. Miller, B-195139,
March 4, 1980.
GPO has reported that the claimant did not meet the minimum
education requirement that was applicable during the detail. The
claimant does not deny that he did not meet the minimum education
requirement. Rather, the claimant has responded that the position
to which he was detailed had previously been occupied by an
individual who did not satisfy the minimum education requirement.
It is, however, well established that claims may not be granted on
the assertion that they may have previously been improperly granted
to another. See Valenzuela v. OPM, 231
Ct. Cl. 907, 908-9 (1982); Cubacub v. OPM, 230
Ct. Cl. 908, 909 (1982); and Baker v. United
States, 222 Ct. Cl. 263, 269 (1980).
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