U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
    Merit System Principles
      MSP 1 Q & A
MSP 2 Q & A
MSP 3 Q & A
MSP 4 Q & A
MSP 5 Q & A
MSP 6 Q & A
MSP 7 Q & A
MSP 8 Q & A
MSP 9 Q & A
FAQ
    Search & Site Index Merit System Principle 4:  High Standards
	“All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest.”
	 
	**What does this mean and why is it important?**
	This merit system principle serves  as the foundation for the standards of ethical conduct applied to all Federal  employees.  It recognizes that public  service is a public trust and that employees are obligated to honor that trust  by respect for and adherence to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles  of Government service.  In order for an  agency to accomplish its mission, its employees’ conduct must command the  respect and confidence of the public.
    **What role does it play in the Merit Systems Protection  Board’s decision-making process?**
      One of the Merit Systems  Protection Board’s (MSPB) primary roles is to adjudicate appeals from  individuals against whom certain disciplinary actions have been taken by their  agency.  Some employees are disciplined  specifically for a violation of the agency’s standards of conduct or for  conduct unbecoming a Federal employee.  Some  examples are found in *Todd v. Department  of Justice*, 71  M.S.P.R. 326 (1996), and *Sullivan v.  U.S. Postal Service*, 56  M.S.P.R. 196 (1993).  Others may be  charged with specific misconduct, such as absence without leave, falsification  of documents, criminal activity, and misuse of Government resources.  A charge of unacceptable conduct of any  nature will generally implicate this merit system principle.
    The MSPB’s consideration of  any disciplinary action that is being appealed requires a determination of whether  the action promotes the efficiency of the service and the penalty is within the  tolerable bounds of reasonableness.  One  of the Board’s seminal cases, *Douglas v.  Veterans Administration*, 5  M.S.P.R. 280 (1981), sets out a list of factors that, when applicable to  the particular case, should be considered by the agency in assessing the penalty.  Among those factors that specifically  recognize the import of the fourth merit system principle are:  (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) the  effect of the offense on the employee’s ability to perform at a satisfactory  level and its effect upon the supervisors’ confidence in the employee’s ability  to perform assigned duties; (3) the employee’s job level and type of  employment, including supervisory or fiduciary role, contacts with the public,  and prominence of the position; (4) the notoriety of the offense or its impact  upon the reputation of the agency; (5) whether the offense was intentional or  technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was  frequently repeated; and (6) the clarity with which the employee was on notice  of any rules that were violated in committing the offense, or had been warned  about the conduct in question.
    Through its decisions, the  Board has held that all Federal employees are expected to be trustworthy and to  maintain high standards of integrity, *Parsons  v. Department of the Air Force*, 21  M.S.P.R. 438 (1984), but that certain employees, because of the nature of  their position, may be held to an even higher standard of conduct.  For example, law enforcement officers and  supervisory personnel, who set an example for the type of conduct expected not  only for Federal employees, but the public as well, are held to a higher  standard of conduct.  *See Martin v. Department of Transportation*, 103  M.S.P.R. 153 (2006); *Merino v.  Department of Justice*, 94  M.S.P.R. 632 (2003).
    **How is this principle communicated to Federal  employees?**
      The standards of ethical conduct  applicable to all public employees may be found at 5  C.F.R. Part 2635.  This Part of 5 C.F.R.  identifies the basic obligations of public service, their applicability, and  any exceptions.  In addition, most  Federal agencies have published supplemental standards of conduct for their employees  which are generally disseminated to them during initial orientation sessions.  They are also often posted on agency bulletin  boards and printed in agency orders, directives, and newsletters.  Some agencies have established a table of  penalties to put employees on notice of offenses they deem particularly worthy  of discipline.
    The concern about employee  conduct is expressed through specific statutory provisions as well as the  regulations of the Office of Personnel Management.  An example is the “crime” provision which  allows an agency to take an appropriate adverse action on shortened notice when  there is cause to believe the employee has committed a crime for which  imprisonment may be imposed.  *See* 5  U.S.C. § 7513(b)(1) and 5  C.F.R. § 752.604(d).
    Finally, as the Board stated  in *Coons v. Department of the Navy*, 15 M.S.P.R.  1 (1983), the standards of conduct are largely a matter of common sense and  cover an area which employees are presumed to know.   There is no legal requirement upon an agency  to describe in detail all potentially proscribed employee conduct and related  discipline.  *See* *Brown v. Federal Aviation  Administration*, 15  M.S.P.R. 224 (1983), *aff’d* *in part*, *rev’d* *in part on other  grounds*, 735 F.2d 543 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
    **Has the MSPB studied issues relating to conduct?**
      MSPB studies have addressed the expectation that agencies should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest through 1) hiring employees who meet and maintain high standards of integrity, 2) effectively managing employees who demonstrate conduct issues (to be discussed under MSP 6), and 3) encouraging employees to report wrongdoing that they observe (which will be covered under MSP 9).
    The hiring aspect of this MSP is relevant to the 2005 report Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call which advised hiring officials to conduct careful reference checks prior to making each selection decision. Similarly, Clean Record Settlement Agreements and the Law (2013) discussed the implications of entering into clean record settlement agreements, which may require an agency to withhold negative information from prospective employers who are attempting to obtain a reference.
    Fortunately, even when agencies hire new employees from outside the Federal workforce, they usually have a defined period of time to assess the employees and decide whether or not to retain them. The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity (2005) and Navigating the Probationary Period After Van Wersch and McCormick (2007) address the need for supervisors to be attentive to this time frame and take appropriate action in a timely manner when the employees should not attain full career status (and the rights that accompany the successful completion of the probationary period).
    **Do any other agencies provide guidance concerning the  conduct of Federal employees?** 
      The Office of Special Counsel  (OSC) is an independent Federal investigative and prosecutorial agency whose  primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting Federal  employees from prohibited personnel practices.   In furtherance of the mission, OSC provides guidance to Federal  employees concerning conduct that directly conflicts with merit system  principles, such as retaliation for whistleblowing or illegal political  activity.  *See* www.osc.gov.
    The Office of Government  Ethics (OGE) was established to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of  Government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interest that do occur.   As described on its website, “in  partnership with executive branch agencies and departments, the Office of  Government Ethics fosters high ethical standards for employees and strengthens  the public's confidence that the Government's business is conducted with  impartiality and integrity.”  *See* www.oge.gov.


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov