BOP Program Statement 3430.09 § 21

PERFORMANCE

When the reviewing official approves and issues an Unacceptable performance rating, he/she

also issues a notice of proposed action in accordance with the following procedures:

An employee who receives an Unacceptable rating may be reassigned.

A non-probationary employee whose reduction in grade or removal is proposed is entitled to:

■ Thirty calendar days’ advance written notice, which specifies the action proposed, the

specific instances of Unacceptable performance on which the proposed action is based, and

the elements involved in each instance of Unacceptable performance. These instances must

have occurred within one year prior to the notice of proposed action.

■ The right to be represented by an attorney or other representative.

■ Fifteen calendar days to respond orally and/or in writing to the deciding official. The

response time may be extended for a specified time as determined by the deciding

official, but not for more than an additional 30 days.

■ A final written decision within 30 days after the expiration of the 30-day advance notice

period. The written decision must specify the instances of Unacceptable performance

upon which the action is based and may include any instances of Unacceptable

performance that occurred within a one-year period ending on the date of the notice of

proposed action. The final decision must also include notice of the employee’s right to

appeal the action to the Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Employment Opportunity

P3430.09 7/25/2017 19

Commission, or to file a grievance under the negotiated grievance procedure (but only

one); the time limits for filing an appeal or grievance; a copy of the MSPB appeal form;

and a copy (or access to a copy) of the MSPB regulations.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 20

Section 2. Performance Evaluation Program for Non-Bargaining Unit

Employees

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The objectives of the performance evaluation program are to help improve performance;

strengthen supervisor-employee relationships and communications; identify and inform

employees of organizational objectives, work requirements, and standards; recognize employee

accomplishments and good work; identify and correct work deficiencies; and guide personnel

actions such as within-grade and quality step increases, promotions, demotions, removals,

reassignments, performance awards, and training.

Directives Referenced

Program Statement Awards Program, Incentive Awards

DOJ Human Capital Objectives and Strategic Plan.

5 CFR 293, 430, 432, 451, 531, 532 and 771.

5 U.S.C., Chapters 43 and 45

2. COVERAGE

This section applies to all non-bargaining unit employees, except:

■ Employees serving under excepted appointments of less than 120 calendar days.

■ Persons providing services on a contract basis.

■ Attorneys classified in the GS-905 series and Law Clerks classified in the GS-904 series.

■ Employees in the Senior Executive Service.

■ Any other employees specifically excluded by statute.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

The effective date is the date this policy is published. Any administrative action initiated prior

to this approved policy (e.g., an action taken against an employee for Unsatisfactory

performance under 5 U.S.C. 4303) and any ratings deferred under the previous appraisal

program must continue to be processed in accordance with the procedures contained in that

program.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 21

4. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. The Assistant Director, Human Resource Management Division, is responsible for the

overall administration of this program.

b. The Federal Bureau of Prisons Personnel Director is responsible for ensuring that the

performance evaluation program is carried out throughout the system in compliance with current

laws and regulations.

c. Chief Executive Officers are responsible for ensuring that there is an effective performance

evaluation program at their level of the organization.

d. The Approving Official for Outstanding performance ratings varies with the organizational

level of the employee being rated:

(1) Institution Wardens are the approving officials for Bureau of Prisons employees at and below

the assistant department head level.

(2) Complex Wardens are the approving officials for non-UNICOR institution employees

above the assistant department head level, with the exception of the employees they

directly supervise.

(3) Regional Directors are the approving officials for non-UNICOR and non-Complex

institution employees above the assistant department head level and Regional Office employees

below the Deputy Regional Director. This does not preclude input by the appropriate Assistant

Director.

(4) Assistant Directors are the approving officials for Central Office employees, except for

employees for whom the Director or Deputy Director is the reviewing official.

(5) Assistant Director, Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) is the approving official for

institution non-bargaining UNICOR employees.

e. The Reviewing Official is the next supervisor above the rating official and is responsible for

assigning an overall rating and approving or adjusting individual element ratings. Reviewing

officials also approve elements and standards for their subordinate staff, are responsible for

monitoring the performance appraisal practices of subordinate supervisors, and provide advice or

instruction as needed. Reviewing officials ensure that recommendations for incentive awards

based on performance ratings are consistent with policy, and determine whether recommendations for Outstanding performance ratings will be forwarded to the approving official.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 22

f. The Rating Official is the first level of management having the full range of supervisory

responsibilities, including recommending performance awards. Rating officials are responsible

for meeting with employees and providing performance feedback/guidance, conducting progress

reviews, and completing the annual performance rating in accordance with the procedures in this

section.

Regional Administrators may suggest to rating officials significant incidents for inclusion in the

progress review or final rating that relate to the quality of professional services provided. These

suggestions may be particularly useful for departments in specialized program areas.

Institution Chief Executive Officers are the rating officials for Associate Wardens (I&E) and

Superintendents of UNICOR. UNICOR Division Managers may suggest to the CEO significant

incidents for inclusion in the performance plan that relate to UNICOR Corporate goals and

policies.

g. Employees are responsible for becoming familiar with the objectives and procedures of the

performance evaluation program and for understanding the elements and performance measures

in their Performance Work Plan (PWP). The employee is responsible for seeking clarification

from the supervisor on any objective, performance measure, or any other aspect of this program

that is not clear. The employee should inform the supervisor of any factors or circumstances

that he/she believes should be considered in evaluating his/her performance.

h. Human Resource Managers are responsible for providing advice and assistance to

employees and supervisors on this program and training on the Performance Management

System. Performance management training is provided to supervisors/managers once per

calendar year.

Human Resource Managers will be responsible for maintaining and reviewing performance

reports on a quarterly basis.

5. BASIC PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

The basic structure of the performance evaluation program is outlined below and described in

detail in subsequent sections.

At the beginning of the rating period, the rating official issues the employee his/her Performance

Work Plan (PWP) and discusses its contents with the employee. Both the employee and rating

official acknowledge receipt of the PWP. The rating official records the date that the discussion

took place.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 23

Halfway through the rating period, the rating official completes a written progress review and

discusses it with the employee. Both the employee and rating official acknowledge the progress

review. The rating official records the date that the progress review discussion took place.

Performance plans created with less than 180 days left in the rating cycle do not require a

progress review.

At the end of the rating period, the rating official evaluates objectives and measures within each

element of the PWP, assigns a rating to each element, and forwards the rating to the reviewing

official. The reviewing official approves or adjusts the individual element ratings, approves an

overall rating (and forwards the rating to the approving official in the case of Outstanding

ratings), and returns the rating to the rating official for discussion with and acknowledgement by

the employee. Typically, employees will receive their performance rating within three weeks

after the end of the rating period.

The performance appraisal program allows for rating individual elements, as well as overall

performance, at one of five levels, using pattern H (5 CFR 430.208), which reflects ratings at

level 5 (Outstanding), level 4 (Excellent), level 3 (Achieved Results), level 2 (Minimally

Satisfactory), and level 1 (Unsatisfactory).

An employee must have worked under a PWP for a minimum of 90 days before receiving a

rating based on his/her PWP. A rating official must have supervised an employee for a

minimum of 90 days before he/she can rate the employee. These 90-day requirements apply

only to final ratings, not progress reviews. There is no minimum time requirement before a

reviewing official can review a rating.

Employees absent due to being on active military duty or workers’ compensation will maintain

their existing rating until their return. Employees returning with at least 90 days remaining in the

current rating period will be evaluated at the end of the rating cycle. Employees with less than 90

days remaining in the current rating period will be evaluated after the 90-day requirement has been

met.

6. RATING PERIOD

The rating period for employees begins on April 1 each year and ends March 31 the following

year. Except as specified in subsection 9b, the rating period may be adjusted as follows:

■ If an employee changes positions, which results in the issuance of a new PWP, the rating

period begins on the date of the change and ends on March 31, or 90 days after the date of

the change, whichever is later.

■ If an employee changes supervisors, the rating period does not end until he/she has been

under the same supervisor for at least 90 days.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 24

■ If a rating period is extended past March 31 to meet one or both of the conditions described

above, then the employee’s next rating period starts on the day after the above conditions

are met and ends on March 31 the following year.

7. CRITICAL ELEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Critical job elements developed by the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of

Justice correspond with the Director’s PWP. The elements tie in with the Department of

Justice’s Strategic Goals and Human Capital Goals and with the Bureau of Prisons’

organizational goals and desired results. The Personnel Director’s Branch reissues elements

when necessary to reflect changes in organizational objectives. The Attorney General or Deputy

Attorney General may issue mandatory critical elements, objectives, and/or measures that must

be included in an employee’s PWP.

An “objective” is a goal or expectation that must be met during the life of the PWP.

A “performance measure” is a particular function or task that must be accomplished in support of

the objective. A performance measure must be measurable (in terms of quantity, timeliness, etc.)

The PWP allows for rating each performance measure, element, and overall performance at one

of five levels: Outstanding, Excellent, Achieved Results, Minimally Satisfactory, and

Unsatisfactory.

8. DEVELOPING A PERFORMANCE WORK PLAN

A PWP contains three Critical elements:

■ Accountability for Organizational Results.

■ People/Workforce/Teamwork/Communication.

■ Taxpayer Value.

Each Critical element must contain at least three objectives. Each objective must contain at least

one performance measure.

At the beginning of the rating period, the rating official and employee review the rating official’s

PWP to determine which objectives and measures correspond to the employee’s PWP. The PWP

form found on Sallyport, on the Staffing and Employee Relations page, is used to develop this

plan. Additional objectives and performance measures may be created by the rating official.

Performance measures are written at the Achieved Results level. The PWP should be discussed

and issued as soon as possible after the start of the rating period, normally within 30 days. The

P3430.09 7/25/2017 25

employee and rating official acknowledge receipt of the PWP. The rating official records the

date that the discussion took place.

Changes can be made to a PWP up to 90 days prior to the end of the rating period. The

employee acknowledges the changes made to the PWP. The rating official records the date the

discussion took place. If the rating official changes during the rating period but there is no

change to the employee’s PWP, it is not necessary for the new rating official to review the PWP

with the employee; however, rating officials are always responsible for discussing the PWP and

responding to employees’ requests for clarification of the standards.

If an employee is detailed or temporarily promoted to another position in the Bureau and the

assignment is expected to last at least 120 days, the employee will be given a PWP for the

temporary assignment within 30 days of beginning the detail or temporary promotion. An

interim rating will be prepared at the end of the detail or temporary promotion; the weight

given to this interim rating will be proportional to its share of the total appraisal period.

If an employee is detailed outside the Bureau, reasonable efforts will be made to obtain

appraisal information from the outside organization that shall be considered in arriving at the

employee’s rating of record. If the employee has served in the Bureau for the minimum time

period (90 days) during the rating period, he/she must be rated. The rating will take into account

appraisal information obtained from the borrowing organization.

If the employee has not served in the Bureau for the minimum time period, but has served the

minimum time period in the outside organization:

■ Reasonable efforts will be made to prepare a rating based on the appraisal information from

the borrowing organization, or

■ The rating will be deferred until the employee is able to serve the minimum time period in

the Bureau or the borrowing organization is able to provide appraisal information.

The final rating most recently rendered by the former agency will be the employee’s current

rating of record until it is superseded by a final rating issued by the Bureau.

9. MONITORING PERFORMANCE

The performance evaluation program requires that rating officials observe and note employee

performance continuously throughout the rating period.

a. Evaluating Performance. Performance is evaluated based on the actual work

accomplishments of the employee. Instances of performance used to evaluate the employee must

P3430.09 7/25/2017 26

be related to one or more elements of his/her PWP. The rating official considers what he/she

accomplished compared to the PWP, and circumstances surrounding or contributing to the

performance – such as the consequences of the performance, whether the employee had

sufficient time and resources, or whether circumstances outside the employee’s control

contributed to the performance.

b. Multiple Supervision. If an employee is supervised by more than one supervisor during the

rating period, those supervisors are responsible for providing the rating official with any

comments or incidents for consideration for inclusion in the PWP. This provision does not

apply to employees who receive an interim rating in accordance with subsection 8 of this

section.

c. Documenting Unsatisfactory Performance. Instances of Unsatisfactory performance

recorded in the performance log require additional actions by the supervisor. Refer to subsection

21 of this section for information on addressing Unsatisfactory performance.

10. PROGRESS REVIEW

The rating official will conduct at least one formal progress review during the rating period,

unless the time requirements outlined in this subsection are not met.

One progress review is required for non-probationary employees; it will be conducted at the

halfway point of the rating period. Performance plans created with less than 180 days left in the

rating cycle do not require a progress review.

Three progress reviews are required for probationary employees; they will be conducted at the

end of the third, sixth, and ninth months of the probationary year.

No rating is assigned to the elements at this time. The rating official will discuss the progress

review with the employee and both will acknowledge the discussion. There is no provision or

requirement for the reviewing official to review or comment on the progress review; however,

reviewing officials may examine progress reviews prepared by their subordinate supervisors.

Acknowledgement of progress reviews and the annual rating for probationary employees is

recorded on one performance appraisal form. Acknowledgement of the performance plan as well

as the 3-month, 6-month, and 9-month progress reviews and annual rating are recorded on one

form. Rating officials must ensure that a probationary employee acknowledges receipt of his/her

performance plan, as well as after each progress review is issued.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 27

The rating official does not assign ratings for any of the probationer’s progress reviews; ratings

are assigned to the elements only for the final rating at the end of the probationary period.

Likewise, there is no provision or requirement for the reviewing official to review or comment

on the 3-month, 6-month, or 9-month progress reviews of probationary employees; however,

rating officials may examine the progress reviews prepared by their subordinate supervisors.

The reviewing official assigns the overall rating and makes narrative comments on the final

annual rating of a probationary employee.

11. FINAL RATING

a. Determining Element Ratings. The rating of an employee’s performance in each job

element is determined by the ratings assigned to each performance measure by the rating

official, based upon the employee’s accomplishments.

Each performance measure is rated at one of five levels: Outstanding, Excellent, Achieved

Results, Minimally Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory. The rating official will select the rating for

each measure and write narrative comments in the space provided for each.

Subsequently, each element is rated at the level that reflects the level assigned to the majority

of performance measures for that element. The rating official derives the element rating based

on the following: If two different levels have an equal number of performance measures, the

official may assign either level unless there is an intermediate level. For example, if two

measures are Achieved Results and two are Excellent, the rater may assign either Achieved

Results or Excellent as the element rating. If two measures are Achieved Results and two are

Outstanding, the rater must assign Excellent. If there are an unequal number of performance

levels assigned to a measure, the levels must be averaged (i.e., 3 EX, 2 MS, 1 AR = AR).

Special provisions apply when rating a performance measure as Unsatisfactory. Refer to

subsection 21 of this section for the procedures for documenting Unsatisfactory performance.

The rating official will select the rating for each element, and write narrative comments on the

employee’s overall performance in the “rater’s comments” section of the form. Rating officials

must complete the training and career development section of the form with recommendations

for training or other developmental activities.

For dual or multiple supervision, all supervisors of 90 days or more should provide input into

the rating process. Reviewing officials may also seek input from supervisors of lesser periods

of time.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 28

b. Overall Rating. The overall rating is approved by the reviewing official, based on

the individual element ratings. The reviewing official approves the overall rating and

writes narrative comments in the “reviewer’s comments” section.

Except in the case of Outstanding ratings, the rating assigned by the reviewing official is the

final rating. If the proposed rating is Outstanding, the individual specified in subsection 4d of

this section is the approving official. Reviewing officials must adjust individual element

ratings to be consistent with the overall rating; however, any such changes by the reviewer

must be substantiated by the comments in the “reviewer’s comments” section.

Element Ratings are noted on the Element Rating Scale on the PWP form: Outstanding = 5;

Excellent = 4; Achieved Results = 3; Minimally Satisfactory = 2; Unsatisfactory = U.

The element points are multiplied by the weight factor to determine the total element score.

The three element scores are added to determine the Overall Summary Rating.

The overall PWP rating is determined by comparing the Overall Summary Rating to the

Summary Rating Scale. The Summary Rating Scale is:

461 – 500 = Outstanding

361 – 460 = Excellent

261 – 360 = Achieved Results

200 – 260 = Minimally Satisfactory

When an element is rated as Unsatisfactory (U), an Overall Summary Total is not calculated.

Instead, the Overall Performance Rating of Record must be marked Unsatisfactory.

12. FINAL DISCUSSION

After the reviewing official has approved the final rating (and the approving official has

approved an Outstanding rating, if applicable), the rating form is returned to the rating official

for discussion with the employee. No rating will be discussed with the employee until after

the reviewing official (and, if necessary, the approving official) has approved the final rating.

The rating official should give adequate time and attention to this part of the evaluation

process.

Rating officials must specify areas in which their employees should seek out training,

education, or other developmental activities to improve skills or knowledge or enhance career

advancement and promotion potential. The employee will acknowledge his/her final rating,

P3430.09 7/25/2017 29

indicating that the performance rating has been discussed. The completed evaluation will be

filed in the employee’s eOPF.

13. FILING COMPLETED PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

Completed performance ratings will be retained for four years. If a rating is increased or

changed as a result of a successfully pursued grievance or other proceeding, the amended rating

will be filed and the contested rating removed from the employee’s eOPF.

The final rating will be keyed into the NFC system, in accordance with instructions in the

Payroll/Personnel Processing Manual.

14. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES

The probationary period is an extension of the examination and selection process and provides an

opportunity for management to assess the total suitability of new employees. It is the policy of

the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide probationary employees with an intensive program to

ensure that they are provided with direction in their jobs and are capable of performing

effectively.

Probationary employees receive formal progress reviews immediately following the third, sixth,

and ninth months of employment, as described in subsection 10 of this section.

Failure to meet the standards of performance and satisfactorily complete training will be a basis

for disqualifying an employee during the probationary period.

No part of this section is to be interpreted as discouraging or preventing the initiation of removal

action at any time during the probationary year if it is determined, after a full and fair review, that

the employee’s performance or conduct is not satisfactory.

Employees in the competitive service who are serving a probationary period are excluded from

the provisions of 5 C.F.R. Part 432 governing performance-based reduction in grade and

removal actions.

15. INFORMING SUPERVISORS AND EMPLOYEES

In recognition of the importance of the performance appraisal program and its significance to

both supervisors and employees, a copy of this section of the policy will be provided to all non-bargaining unit employees upon its issuance and to new non-bargaining unit employees when

they enter on duty. In addition, the Human Resource Manager will ensure that all current rating

P3430.09 7/25/2017 30

and reviewing officials receive a copy of this section of the policy and will give new rating and

reviewing officials a copy when they assume such a position.

Human Resource Managers are responsible for providing advice and assistance to supervisors on

all aspects of this program and are encouraged to conduct periodic formal training to review the

purposes and procedures of performance appraisal.

Supervisors are responsible for discussing the performance evaluation program with their

subordinates, including explaining the purpose of the program, rating procedures, and how the

process furthers employee and management goals.

16. PERFORMANCE RATING GRIEVANCES

Non-bargaining unit employees may seek to change their performance ratings using the agency

grievance procedure.

17. RELATIONSHIP TO WITHIN-GRADE INCREASES

To be eligible for a within-grade step increase, an employee must meet the requirements in 5

CFR 531.404 (General Schedule) or 5 CFR 532.417 (Prevailing Rate System). One of these

requirements is that the employee must demonstrate an acceptable level of competence in the

duties and responsibilities of his/her position. Acceptable level of competence is determined by

the employee’s most current rating of record being an overall rating of Achieved Results or

higher. The rating of record used as the basis of a within-grade increase determination must

have been assigned no earlier than the most recently completed appraisal period.

If a decision to grant or deny the within-grade increase is inconsistent with the most recent rating

of record, a more current rating of record must be prepared. If the employee’s most recent rating

of record is Achieved Results or higher, and the performance has deteriorated below an

acceptable level of competence, a new rating of record must be prepared on which to base the

decision to deny the increase. Similarly, if the most recent rating of record was below Achieved

Results and the performance has improved to an acceptable level of competence, a new rating of

record must be prepared on which to base the decision to grant the increase.

A supervisor who determines that an employee does not or may not demonstrate an acceptable

level of competence will notify the employee in writing at least 60 days before the date on which

the employee will complete the required waiting period for a within-grade increase. At least 15

days prior to the end of the waiting period, the supervisor will tentatively determine whether

withholding the increase is warranted. If the employee fails to demonstrate an acceptable level

of competence, the next higher supervisory level will review the supervisor’s tentative

P3430.09 7/25/2017 31

determination. If both supervisors agree to withhold the increase, the immediate supervisor will

so advise the employee in writing, stating the reasons for withholding the increase and referring

to the advance notice given to the employee.

General Schedule employees are entitled to request reconsideration of a decision to withhold

a within-grade increase and to present orally and in writing the reasons he/she believes the

decision should be reversed. If the decision is to grant the increase, the employee will be

certified as meeting an acceptable level of competence and the increase will be granted

retroactively as of the end of the waiting period.

General Schedule and Federal Wage System employees may contest a performance rating on

which a negative determination is based under the agency grievance procedure.

18. QUALITY STEP INCREASES AND PERFORMANCE AWARDS

Refer to the Program Statement Awards Program, Incentive Awards for eligibility criteria for

Quality Step Increases and performance awards.

19. ADDRESSING DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE

Addressing performance deficiencies and taking performance-based actions appropriately are

important aspects of a sound performance management system. Procedures and requirements

for addressing performance that falls below the acceptable level are discussed in the following

paragraphs.

Acceptable performance is performance that meets the performance standard or requirement at

the level above Minimally Satisfactory.

20. MINIMALLY SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

When instances of performance or overall performance are deemed to be Minimally

Satisfactory, the supervisor should determine what action is best suited to the particular

circumstances after discussion with the employee. Counseling, training, and closer supervision

are the most commonly practiced options available. These efforts should be thoroughly

documented. If Minimally Satisfactory performance continues, the supervisor has the option of

continuing counseling, training, or closer supervision, or finding that the employee’s

performance has become Unsatisfactory.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 32

21. UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

These procedures will be followed at any time during the rating cycle when a supervisor records

an instance of Unsatisfactory performance in one or more elements of the PWP. Again,

employee performance below the Minimally Satisfactory level is considered Unsatisfactory.

a. Unsatisfactory Performance Warning. When a supervisor records an instance of an

Unsatisfactory performance measure at any time during the rating cycle after the employee

acknowledges the PWP, he/she will obtain concurrence with the employee’s reviewing official

and the servicing Human Resource Office. If the Unsatisfactory measure rating is approved,

the rater will issue the employee a written warning of a potentially Unsatisfactory performance

rating.

This warning letter must include:

(1) The objective(s) and measure(s) by which performance is Unsatisfactory.

(2) Specific examples of the Unsatisfactory performance.

Performance measures that must be attained to demonstrate acceptable performance in the

position. The acceptable level for retention under the Bureau’s five-level system is Minimally

Satisfactory.

A reasonable opportunity period to demonstrate acceptable performance on the performance

measures at issue, beginning upon the employee’s receipt of the letter. This opportunity period

will normally not be less than 30 days nor more than 90 days following the issuance of the

warning letter and will be determined under the circumstances of the particular case. The

initially established period may be extended at the agency’s discretion for extenuating

circumstances, such as extended periods of absence during the opportunity period.

(3) Notice that the employee must improve to the acceptable level by the conclusion of the

opportunity period and must sustain that level of performance for at least one year from the start

of the opportunity period.

(4) A structured performance improvement plan (PIP) to provide the employee opportunities to

demonstrate acceptable performance. The PIP may include such activities as developmental

assignments, structured employee assistance or counseling, formal training, on-the-job training,

mentoring, or any other activity that the supervisor believes will afford the employee an

opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance. Careful records must be kept of assistance

offered and results achieved under the PIP.

P3430.09 7/25/2017 33

(5) Explanation of actions which may be initiated if the Unsatisfactory performance continues

or if acceptable performance is not demonstrated. Human Resource Managers will assist

supervisors in preparing performance warning letters. Warning letters must be approved by

the Regional HRM Office and the Employment Law Branch, OGC, before being issued to the

employee.

b. Improved Performance During the Opportunity Period. If, at the conclusion of the

opportunity period, the rating official determines that the employee has improved to an

acceptable level in the element that formed the basis for the opportunity period, no further

action will be taken. When it is time for the annual rating, the rating official will consider the

instance of Unsatisfactory performance along with other recorded instances of performance

for that element and give it appropriate weight in assigning the rating for that element.

c. Additional Unsatisfactory Performance During the Opportunity Period. If, at the

conclusion of the opportunity period, the rating official determines that the employee has not

improved to an acceptable level in the element that formed the basis for the opportunity

period, the rating official will prepare an annual performance rating. The element will be

rated Unsatisfactory and the proposed overall rating will be Unsatisfactory.

If it is not time for the annual rating and the reviewing official does not concur with the

proposed Unsatisfactory rating, then no rating will be issued. However, if at any time during

the remainder of the rating period the supervisor notes another instance of Unsatisfactory

performance in the same element, he/she will again propose an Unsatisfactory rating.

If it is time for the annual rating and the reviewing official does not concur with the proposed

Unsatisfactory rating, then the reviewing official’s rating is the final rating. The reviewing

official must adjust the individual element ratings to support the overall rating given and

substantiate these changes in his/her comments on the rating form.

If the reviewing official concurs with the proposed Unsatisfactory rating, an Unsatisfactory

rating is issued, together with a notice of proposed action in accordance with subsection 22 of

this section.

d. Additional Unsatisfactory Performance During the 12 Months Following the

Beginning of the Opportunity Period. To demonstrate acceptable performance following a

performance warning letter, employees are required to improve their performance to an

acceptable level and sustain that level of performance for 12 months following the beginning of

the opportunity period. Therefore, if a supervisor notes Unsatisfactory performance in the same

element that formed the basis for the warning letter at any time during the 12 months

P3430.09 7/25/2017 34

P3430.09 7/25/2017 35

following the beginning of the opportunity period, he/she will prepare a proposed

Unsatisfactory rating as described in subsection 21c. This is the case even if the employee did

demonstrate acceptable performance during the opportunity period or received a performance

rating at or above the acceptable level since the issuance of the warning letter.