Opinion ID: 698292
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competitive Service vs. Competitive Status

Text: 21 The Government first raises the issue that Gonji had not acquired competitive status at the time he was terminated. To support its argument that Gonji does not meet the definition of an employee under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1), the Government cites the Civil Service Regulations and the following quote from the Executive Order that provides authority for appointments to overseas positions: 22 United States citizens may be recruited overseas for appointment to overseas positions in the competitive service without regard to the competitive requirements of the Civil Service Act. Persons so recruited who meet the qualification standards and other requirements of the Office of Personnel Management (Office) for overseas positions may be given appointments to be known as overseas limited appointments. Such appointments shall be of temporary or indefinite duration, and shall not confer the right to acquire a competitive status. 23 Exec.Order No. 10,577 (1954), 3 C.F.R. 218 (1954-1958), as amended by Exec.Order No. 10,641 (1955), 3 C.F.R. 274 (1954-1958), reprinted as amended in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3301 note at 662 (1994) (emphasis added); see also Civil Service Rules, 5 C.F.R. Sec. 8.2 (1995). The Civil Service Regulations provide similar language: 24 An overseas limited employee does not acquire a competitive status on the basis of his or her overseas limited appointment. 25 5 C.F.R. Sec. 301.204(a) (1995) (emphasis added). 26 The Government constructs its argument by first citing the section 7511(a)(1) definition of an employee as an individual in the competitive service, and then citing the above regulation and Executive Order which show that Gonji, as an overseas limited appointee, did not acquire a competitive status. By arguing that Gonji does not meet the definition of an employee under section 7511(a)(1) because he did not acquire a competitive status, the Government confuses the terms competitive status and competitive service. 27 Status and service are different terms in civil service parlance and should not be confused. Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46, 53 (D.C.Cir.1950), aff'd, 341 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 669, 95 L.Ed. 1352 (1951). Competitive status means an individual's basic eligibility for noncompetitive assignment to a competitive position. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 212.301 (1995). Competitive status permits promotion, transfer, reassignment, or reinstatement without competitive examination. Id. On the other hand, the term service refers to positions or offices. The two terms are mutually exclusive. See FPM Ch. 212, 2-2 (1989) (explaining that a position may be in the competitive service whether or not the person occupying the position has competitive status). An individual holding a position in the competitive service does not necessarily have competitive status, see, e.g., Carter v. Department of the Army, 19 MSPR 135, 137 (1984) (holding that a TAPER (Temporary Appointment Pending establishment of a Civil Service Register) appointee is in the competitive service but does not have competitive status), and an individual with competitive status is not necessarily in the competitive service, see, e.g., Bailey, 182 F.2d at 53 (One who has been separated from the service does not occupy a position and so is not in the service, even though he retains his competitive status.). 28 Gonji's personnel records, as well as the Executive Order providing authority for appointments to overseas positions, show that Gonji was in the competitive service at the time he was terminated. The Executive Order quoted above states that overseas limited appointments are positions in the competitive service. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 8.2 (1995). Each of the Standard Form 50 Notice of Personnel Action documents submitted to this court indicates that Gonji held a position in the competitive service. 29 Overseas limited appointees serve in positions in the competitive service and may become statutory employees under section 7511(a)(1) and gain expanded rights of appeal upon completion of their probation period, regardless of the fact that their position does not confer the right to acquire a competitive status. Gonji held a position in the competitive service at the time he was terminated and clearly satisfies at least this portion of the definition of an employee under section 7511(a)(1)(A).