Army Civilian Mobility Agreement

by admin on December 3, 2020

The Merit Systems Protection Board in Gallegos v. Department of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 53 (July 17, 2014), that the complainant`s expulsion for non-compliance with a condition of employment is appropriate if the complainant, despite being subject to a mobility application, refused a targeted reassignment. Complainant Gallegos was a forensic police officer with GS-13. As a condition of its commitment, Gallegos was required to execute a mobility agreement in which it recognized that any non-acceptance of a geographic reallocation could subordinate a separation from the federal service. In 2012, Gallegos reported on a targeted redistribution from Florida to Virginia. She objected to the reassignment and the Agency removed it by accusing it of “not fulfilling a condition of employment”. In addition to installing a residence on the new geographic site prior to payment of a relocation incentive, a worker must reside at the new geographic site for the duration of the service contract. A relocation incentive is terminated for employees who do not have a residence on the new geographic site for the duration of the service contract. At regular intervals during the service contract, staff may be required to provide proof of residence.

Examples of proof of residence are a rental agreement, proof of the purchase of a property, an electricity bill or a similar document to ensure that the employee is still on the new site. An agency cannot enter into an agreement on relocation incentives during a period of service defined by the service contract to encourage the hiring of a staff member or by a previously authorized relocation incentive service contract. An agency may set up a moving incentive service contract during a period of service established by a previously approved retention incentive service contract, or a staff member receives pre-approved retention incentive payments without a service agreement. The allegation of non-compliance with a condition of employment has two elements that the Agency has had to demonstrate: (1) The requirement at issue is a condition of employment; and (2) the applicant did not meet this condition. Without evidence of bad faith or patent impartiality, the Chamber differs from the Agency`s requirements that must be met in order for a person to be appointed to or retain a specific position. The board found that the mobility requirement was a prerequisite for employment, as all of these positions were subject to the mobility requirement and Gallegos and his colleagues regularly signed mobility agreements. Gallegos does not deny that it refused to meet the mobility requirement.

Previous post:

Next post: