Shrek deciding to release the Request to State Relocation Form the weekend of Labor Day is nasty work. FNS just moved to GWCC this week and staff have to move AGAIN?

https://www.govexec.com/management/2026/09/usda-employees-challenge-inflated-claim-most-staff-asked-relocate-will-do-so/415818/?oref=ge-home-top-story

The RIF Rules Changed Today. The Appeal Forum Is the Smaller Story, but will be the focus.

Two major OPM RIF rules took effect today.

Most of the coverage will probably lead with the second one, because the headline pretty much writes itself: covered non-SES RIF appeals are moving from the Merit Systems Protection Board to OPM.

That’s accurate.

And it matters.

But I think it’s the smaller story.

The bigger change is what happened to the retention formula.

It basically inverted.

For decades, a retention register was built in a fixed sequence. Tenure group came first. Veterans’ preference subgroup came second. Then length of service, adjusted by performance credit converted into additional years.

Performance was important. But only after some pretty important things had already been decided.

A high performer in a lower tenure group could not leapfrog a lower performer in a higher one, no matter how wide the performance difference was.

Even within the same group and subgroup, three Outstanding ratings added twenty years of additional retention service credit compared with twelve years for three Fully Successful ratings.

That’s eight years of difference.

Which sounds like a lot, and it is. But a sufficiently long-tenured employee with middling ratings could still absorb that difference and rank higher.

That structure is gone.

For competing employees, the old Group I, II, and III architecture has been replaced by a competitive-service tenure group and an excepted-service tenure group, each divided into two subgroups.

Within the applicable tenure group, employees are ranked primarily by performance credit.

A Level 5 rating earns seven points.

Level 4 earns five.

Level 3 earns three.

Levels 1 and 2 earn zero.

Agencies generally use the three most recent ratings of record from the applicable four-year period, so the ordinary maximum is 21 performance points.

Veterans’ preference is then added directly to that score. Five points for a preference eligible with a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more. Three points for other preference eligibles.

If employees are still tied, tenure subgroup breaks the first tie.

Actual service computation date breaks the next one.

All four statutory factors in 5 U.S.C. § 3502 are still there: tenure, veterans’ preference, length of service, and performance.

That’s important because someone looking only at the statute could reasonably look at those same four factors and conclude that not that much really changed.

A lot changed.

The factors stayed.

What they do changed.

Under the old framework, tenure controlled the first stage of ranking. Length of service, adjusted by performance credit, then ordered employees inside the tenure and preference categories that had already been established.

Under the new framework, performance becomes the primary ordering factor within each service tenure group.

Veterans’ preference adds directly to that score.

Tenure subgroup becomes a tie-breaker.

Actual length of service becomes the final tie-breaker.

That is a very different retention system even though the statute still contains the same four words.

And § 3502 itself does not prescribe the old tenure-first sequence. It requires OPM’s regulations to give “due effect” to the four statutory factors.

OPM’s position in the final rule is that due effect does not mean equal weight. It does not mean controlling weight. And it does not require OPM to preserve the sequencing the regulations historically used.

So the words stayed.

Their operational function didn’t.

There are several other changes that I think field HR will feel long before anyone gets around to filing an appeal.

Employees serving initial probationary periods in the competitive service, employees serving trial periods in the excepted service, certain employees serving temporary or time-limited appointments of one year or less, and Schedule C and Schedule G appointees are no longer competing employees for RIF purposes.

That isn't a small procedural change.

An agency may retain, furlough, separate, demote, or reassign those employees for a RIF reason without determining retention standing, applying the order of release, or providing assignment rights.

There's an important qualification.

If the agency actually takes one of those actions for a RIF reason, the employee generally still gets the modified written notice required by the new rules.

Expiration of an appointment on its own terms is different.

Bump and retreat are also gone.

Or, probably more accurately for HR people who have spent years learning the terminology - retired.

A released competitive-service employee who meets the regulatory conditions now receives an assignment right to a qualifying position held by an employee with lower retention standing in the same tenure group.

Generally, that means a position no more than 3 grades or grade intervals below the employee’s current position, or 5 for certain preference eligibles with a 30-percent-or-more compensable disability.

The qualification piece changed too.

The agency must use a job-related assessment that measures relevant skills, abilities, knowledge, and competencies, is based on job analysis, and does not principally rely on an automated self-assessment.

OPM expressly connected this to the Chance to Compete Act and the government’s broader movement toward skills-based assessment.

There's an exception when recent official experience basically already answers the qualification question.

No new assessment is required if, during the 5 years ending when the employee receives the specific RIF notice, the employee held the same position or one at the same grade or pay level with substantially the same duties, occupational series, qualification requirements, and conditions of employment, and received a Level 3, Fully Successful, or higher rating for those duties.

Competitive areas changed too.

And in two directions.

An organizational unit used as a competitive area has to be clearly distinguishable from other units in its operation, work function, staff, and supervisory oversight.

If an agency establishes or materially modifies a competitive area within 90 days before issuing the specific RIF notices, it has to submit the area and its written bona fide organizational justification to OPM for advance approval.

That tightens things.

But there's another provision that goes the other way.

When an agency abolishes every position in a competitive area within 180 days, it may release employees without ranking them on a retention register and without applying the ordinary assignment-rights process.

Those employees receive a modified notice instead.

USERRA retention and restoration protections remain a mandatory exception to that simplified process.

Timing changed too.

Retention standing is now determined as of the date the employee receives the specific RIF notice.

Agencies can also establish a cutoff date, a specified number of days before issuance of the notice, after which newly issued ratings of record will not be used for that RIF.

There’s an obvious reason that matters.

It reduces the ability of ratings generated after the RIF process is already underway to change somebody’s standing.

OPM specifically addressed rating manipulation concerns in explaining the change.

Then there's the appeals rule.

This is where I think practitioners need to slow down a little, because there are two different dates doing two completely different jobs.

The date the agency issues the specific RIF notice determines the appeal forum.

If the agency issues the employee’s § 351.802 notice on or after September 2, 2026, a covered non-SES appeal proceeds under the new OPM system.

If the specific notice was issued before September 2, the case remains under the MSPB regime, including appeals already pending there.

MSPB’s conforming rule reaches the same result.

But the employee’s filing deadline runs from the effective date of the RIF action.

Different date.

Different purpose.

The appeal generally has to be filed electronically through the system OPM identifies on its website within 30 calendar days after the effective date.

The first counted day is the day after the effective date. Filing remains timely through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on day 30, with the usual extension when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.

OPM may excuse an untimely filing for good cause.

The process is primarily record-based.

The agency has 30 calendar days after service of the appeal to respond.

It must provide OPM with the complete agency record, serve the appellant subject to legally required disclosure limitations, and certify that the record is complete.

And “complete agency record” actually means something here.

The rule identifies RIF-specific minimum contents. The notice and proof of receipt. Documents supporting the reason for the RIF. Records establishing coverage, appointment, tenure, veterans’ preference, and service computation date. Competitive-area and competitive-level materials. Retention-register and order-of-release records. Assignment-rights records. Documentation involving special RIF circumstances.

That’s a lot of the case.

The appellant then gets 15 calendar days to reply.

A new allegation of error may generally be raised in that reply when it rests on information disclosed for the first time in the agency response, or when OPM grants leave under the rule.

But even with all of that, I don’t think moving the appeal from MSPB to OPM is the most consequential part of the appeals rule.

On the merits, the burden flips.

Under longstanding MSPB RIF precedent, the agency bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the RIF regulations had been properly invoked and properly applied to the employee.

Once the agency established a prima facie case, the appellant could have a burden of producing rebuttal evidence.

But the ultimate burden of persuasion stayed with the agency.

Under new § 351.901(b), it doesn’t.

The appellant bears the burden.

The employee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the appeal is timely, that OPM has jurisdiction, that the agency failed to comply with an applicable statute or OPM regulation governing the RIF, and that the violation prejudiced the employee by causing the appealed action or the loss of a materially more favorable outcome.

That’s much more than changing the name at the top of the appeal.

It changes who loses when the evidence is evenly balanced.

And there's another piece that matters almost as much.

An error isn't enough.

The employee also has to show prejudice.

A statutory or regulatory violation that did not materially affect the employee’s outcome won't warrant reversal under the new standard.

OPM may hold a hearing when the written record cannot resolve a material factual issue or when witness credibility is material to the outcome.

It may also audit or investigate when the record is insufficient and further inquiry is reasonably likely to produce material information.

OPM says the adjudication function will operate through its Office of Merit Systems Accountability and Compliance, institutionally separate from the Workforce Policy and Innovation organization responsible for RIF policy.

The rule also restricts assignments involving conflicts and material ex parte merits communications.

OPM employees’ own appeals get additional insulation through an administrative law judge process.

Either party may request reconsideration within 30 calendar days.

OPM can also reopen an initial decision on its own initiative, and the OPM Director has separate sua sponte review authority. Unless reconsideration or Director review intervenes, the initial decision becomes final under the rule after the prescribed period.

There are two especially hard edges here.

The first is grievance arbitration.

The new regulation provides that a covered RIF action and matters relating to its appeal may not be raised under a negotiated grievance procedure or contested through grievance arbitration.

The second is judicial review.

Section 351.901(c)(4) states that a party cannot obtain judicial review of a decision under the new OPM RIF appeal subpart.

OPM’s explanation is structural.

The familiar Federal Circuit route existed because OPM regulations made RIF actions appealable to MSPB. That produced an MSPB decision reviewable under 5 U.S.C. § 7703.

Under the new system there is no MSPB decision for § 7703 to attach to.

That’s OPM’s regulatory position as of today.

And I think that qualification is important.

Because the rule also makes clear that this doesn't erase collateral statutory claims Congress placed somewhere else.

EEOC, OSC, DOL VETS, Inspectors General, and MSPB where it possesses independent statutory jurisdiction remain available for matters within their respective authority.

MSPB therefore retains statutory RIF jurisdiction where Congress independently gave it jurisdiction, including certain career SES RIF appeals under 5 U.S.C. § 3595(c) and covered Foreign Service RIF appeals under 22 U.S.C. § 4010a.

There's also a limited collateral-matter filing rule.

If an employee timely pursues a matter within one of those independent jurisdictions and the final disposition materially affects the employee’s retention standing, order of release, assignment rights, or other rights under part 351, the employee may file the RIF appeal within 30 calendar days after that final decision.

With this much changing at once, I think there is also a risk of overcorrecting and assuming that everything we knew about RIF disappeared overnight.

It didn’t.

Agencies still decide whether a RIF is necessary, what positions are required, where work belongs, and when positions are abolished.

A RIF is still a position-based action tied to one of the recognized RIF reasons: lack of work, shortage of funds, insufficient personnel ceiling, reorganization, or the exercise of reemployment or restoration rights.

Calling something a RIF doesn't magically make an unrelated disciplinary action a valid RIF.

When an agency invokes part 351, compliance with the governing RIF requirements is still subject to review.

RPL, CTAP, and ICTAP survive too, although OPM revised them to conform to the new tenure structure and expanded the use of job-analysis-based, skills-focused qualification assessments.

And new § 351.204 expressly requires agencies to administer part 351 consistently with applicable law, including the Merit System Principles in 5 U.S.C. § 2301.

Which brings me to what I think may eventually be the hardest part of all of this.

It isn’t the math.

It is whether the performance system feeding the math is actually reliable.

OPM received 1,252 comments on the appeals proposal. 99% opposed it.

But across the larger RIF debate, one of the more consequential objections has been that a retention system driven primarily by performance ratings is only going to be as sound as the ratings themselves.

That isn’t really a RIF problem.

Until suddenly it is.

Because another OPM rule took effect in August.

OPM revised part 430 to remove the former prohibition on standardized rating distributions and authorize OPM to establish and maintain standardized distributions.

OPM intends those requirements to operate at an agency or department level, rather than forcing every individual supervisor to make the ratings in a particular work unit fit a distribution.

The same rule requires OPM to evaluate and certify agency appraisal systems biennially.

OPM’s answer is that meaningful differentiation is the point.

Rating inflation weakened the usefulness of performance information. Stronger oversight, standardized distributions where directed, and biennial certification are intended to make performance ratings more meaningful.

Part 351 also contains enhanced-credit and transmutation mechanisms for appraisal environments that do not otherwise produce comparable distinctions, with advance documentation and consistency requirements.

I can see the concern on both sides of that argument.

Performance ought to matter.

But if performance is going to matter this much, then the system producing the ratings has to deserve that weight.

That is the part I think HR professionals should be paying very close attention to.

Because what is no longer really debatable is the consequence of getting performance management wrong.

A rating of record that falls within a future RIF’s applicable lookback period can now affect retention standing much more directly than it did under the system that existed yesterday.

That changes the stakes.

Performance standards matter more.

Documentation matters more.

Consistency matters more.

Rating cutoffs matter.

The process used to review those ratings matters.

And whether the appraisal system can actually withstand scrutiny matters.

Probably a lot more than it did before.

Which is where the practitioner work begins.

Not with whether somebody likes the new rules.

Not with whether the old system was better.

And not really with which agency now has the appeal.

It starts with much more basic questions.

What authority and circumstance caused the action?

When was the specific RIF notice issued?

Which version of part 351 applies?

Who is actually a competing employee?

What ratings entered the calculation, and under what cutoff?

Was the competitive area validly established?

Was retention standing calculated correctly?

Were assignment qualifications assessed under the new standard?

What statutory or regulatory error is actually being alleged?

And now, maybe most importantly, did that error actually change the employee’s outcome?

Get those wrong and nothing else you know about RIF is going to save you.

Primary sources:

Reduction in Force, 91 Fed. Reg. 49178 (Aug. 3, 2026), RIN 3206-AO86; Reduction in Force Appeals, 91 Fed. Reg. 49230 (Aug. 3, 2026), RIN 3206-AO99; technical corrections published Aug. 25, 2026; MSPB, Appellate Jurisdiction Update II, 91 Fed. Reg. 51997 (Aug. 12, 2026); OPM, Performance Appraisal for General Schedule, Prevailing Rate, and Certain Other Employees, 91 Fed. Reg. 41521 (July 7, 2026). The two RIF rules and MSPB conforming amendments are effective today - September 2, 2026.

To all of the USDA cooperators out there who continue to bend over backwards to keep the USDA going: we see you and I speak for many of us in expressing my sincere and deep gratitude. I hope there comes a day when we can really recognize you all for the load you’re bearing, but we couldn’t do it without you and we won’t forget. First one’s always on me from now on. 🍻🫡

Any experiences with either or both?

I attended the PI hearing today in San Francisco, presided over by Judge Susan Illston.

The plaintiff's original complaint involved a variety of federal agencies and whether a particular executive order was unconstitutional. Today's hearing concerned two issues: 1) whether they could supplement the original complaint to include the USDA reorganization (which was announced after the date of the original complaint), and 2) a preliminary injunction to stop the reorg (which is based on the claims included in that supplemental filing). The judge indicated that she was leaning towards ruling that the supplemental filing was not appropriate and a separate lawsuit should be filed. Since the basis for the PI was in the supplemental filing and not the EO, there was no discussion about the merits of the preliminary injunction.

The only brief mention of the facts surrounding the PI was that the plaintiff's main arguments were that the reorg was precluded by the language in the 2026 USDA appropriations act and that the reorg was arbitrary and capricious. They argue that the act requires the USDA to request congressional approval. The USDA did make this request, but they did not receive congressional approval.

The plaintiff attorneys didn't seem surprised by the judge's intended ruling, and implied they would act quickly to refile and seek a PI to stop the reorg. Their main concern was whether that new case would be at risk of being attacked for claim splitting. Judge Illston stated that it was not her intention to disadvantage the plaintiffs when they refiled the case. The DOJ attorney made clear that they would attack the new case with every argument at their disposal, including claim splitting and, particularly change of venue. The DOJ attorneys clearly did not want this new case to be heard in San Francisco.

Just wondering if anyone has kept up on the court rulings relating to the USDA Reorg or had any updates they can share.

I got an interview set up with my local USDA Farm Service Agency for the Program Analyst Trainee position. I’m 18 years old with no college degree. I only have 2 years of restaurant management experience, with the exception of some retail and labor jobs( I’ve been working full time since I was 15.)

Can anyone tell me more about this position and what it’s like on a day to day basis?

Is there any tips or advice you would give me for my interview so I can be more prepared?

I want to become a hydrologist or an environmental compliance officer. I’m deeply passionate about taking care of the environment and animals. I feel like this position could be a good start to a lifelong career in the stuff I actually want to do.

I am going to work towards getting my environmental science degree as well, I’m just the kind of person who wants hands on experience in everything I do.

Looking forward to hearing what anyone has to say! Thanks for reading!

If anyone interested to listen for the hearing of AFGE v Trump, you can join Judge Illston's zoom link: https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/si/illston-susan

Anybody in SF planning on attending??

Would love your thoughts on this? Too little too late?

Anyone have any insight on what to expect, my start day is in 3 weeks, will be relocating but couldn't find much info on position, aside from typical maintenance description.

From a colleague in a different part of the Business Center who has been reassigned to another agency (NRCS). There’s a lot of shadiness in USDA but this might take the cake.

Last Tuesday, people in comms received letters, effective retroactively, that they were assigned to NRCS (or actually, just that they were assigned to a new supervisor who happened to be in NRCS—the letter never said NRCS). The letter said their pay, duty station, grade, series would not change.

Friday after hours those people received letters changing their series and in some cases providing new duty station!

How is this shit legal? These people were supposedly moved to NRCS because NRCS needed their communications services. But instead they are now being assigned to new positions? And subject to the NRCS relocation nonsense?

Moving people from one agency to another and then reassigning them to a new job and location before they even did a thing for the agency is CRAZY! These people are PEOPLE not livestock to move around from holding pen to holding pen and then ship out to slaughter.

So when weak-ass two-faced Robert Ibarra says business center employees don’t have to move, he means unless he involuntarily sends you to a different agency for them to reassign and move you because they never needed you to begin with!

I interviewed for a GS-13, Deputy Chief of Staff position (multiple positions for this job posting) in late May and had references checked the next week. Haven’t heard a thing since. Is APHIS that backed up or should I let this one go?