Last Updated: August 2, 2026

UPDATE, August 2, 2026: The rule is FINAL. OPM signed the three-rule package July 31 (FR 2026-15665, published August 3), effective September 2, 2026. Per the final rule's own preamble, 99% of roughly 1,250 public commenters opposed the appeals portion of the package. OPM finalized it anyway. This post preserves the veterans-preference legal argument, the worked examples, and what changed between the proposal and the final text. For the appeals overhaul, see our appeals-elimination guide; for the full scoring system, see the RIF performance rule breakdown.

When the comment window closed on May 4, the record was lopsided: Disabled American Veterans called the rule illegal, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion opposed it, and thirteen senators objected to a related rule in the same package. The rule replaces federal seniority with a performance score as the primary factor in deciding who keeps their job during a layoff. It takes effect September 2, 2026.

What the Rule Actually Changes

OPM's proposed rule revises 5 CFR Parts 330, 351, 352, 353, and 359 to reorder how agencies decide who survives a RIF. Today, the federal RIF system protects employees in this order: tenure group first, then veterans preference subgroup (AD, A, B), then adjusted service computation date, then performance.

Under the proposed rule, the order would change to: tenure group, then performance score, then veterans preference points, then length of service as a final tiebreaker.

The new performance score: Three years of annual ratings, scored 7 points for Outstanding, 5 for Exceeds Fully Successful, 3 for Fully Successful, and 0 for the bottom two levels. Maximum score is 21 points (three Outstanding ratings). Veterans preference adds 5 or 3 points on top.

The current FedTools post on the technical mechanics of the rule walks through every scoring scenario in detail. This piece focuses on the deadline, the legal challenge from veterans groups, and how to submit a comment.

Why DAV Calls It Illegal

The Veterans Preference Act of 1944 is a statute Congress passed. It establishes categorical protections for veterans in federal hiring, retention, and reductions in force. DAV's legal argument is straightforward: a regulation issued by OPM cannot override a statute issued by Congress. If the proposed rule converts categorical RIF protection into bonus points that can be defeated by a higher performance score, DAV says that diminishes a statutory right beyond what an executive-branch agency has authority to do.

In its formal April 2026 statement, DAV said:

"Veterans' preference is a statutory safeguard, not a discretionary option, and cannot be diminished through regulation."

DAV National Commander Coleman Nee added that the proposed changes would "disproportionately harm those who have already sacrificed for our nation." The organization is asking OPM to withdraw the rule.

The VFW takes a less combative position. Executive Director Ryan Gallucci told Task and Purpose that VFW will work with OPM "to ensure veterans continue to receive all the employment protections to which they are entitled to." The American Legion has formally opposed the rule alongside DAV.

OPM's response, per an unnamed official: "The framing that the rule gives less weight to veterans preference is not true." The agency characterizes performance as the new primary factor and veterans preference as a strong secondary factor. That is technically correct, since preference points are still added. The substantive disagreement is about whether categorical protection (which cannot be overridden by ratings) and bonus points (which can be outscored by ratings) are equivalent. Veterans groups say they are not.

The Numbers and Two Worked Examples

About 621,700 veterans serve in the federal workforce, roughly 27% of all federal employees, per 2024 OPM data reported by Task and Purpose. More than half of those federal veteran employees are disabled veterans. That scale is why DAV, VFW, and the American Legion all filed formal opposition in April rather than treating this as a quiet inside-the-Beltway rulemaking.

The clearest way to see what the rule does is to compare two employees in the same competitive area under both systems.

Example: A 30%-disabled veteran vs. a non-veteran high performer

Employee C (Veteran) Employee D (Non-Veteran)
Years of service 12 4
Veteran status Yes, 30% service-connected disability (Subgroup AD) No
Last 3 ratings Fully Successful, Fully Successful, Fully Successful Outstanding, Outstanding, Exceeds Fully Successful
Current system Subgroup AD: categorically most protected, cannot be displaced Subgroup B: first separated
Current outcome Employee C retained Employee D separated
Proposed system score (3+3+3) + 5 vets pref = 14 points (7+7+5) + 0 = 19 points
Proposed outcome Employee C separated Employee D retained

This is the example DAV points to most often. The five veterans preference points still matter in close calls. They no longer matter against an employee who scored two more Outstanding ratings.

Example: A 30-year career employee vs. a 6-year strong performer

Employee A Employee B
Years of service 20 6
Last 3 ratings Fully Successful x 3 Outstanding x 3
Current system, adjusted SCD 20 years + 12-year performance credit = 32-year SCD 6 + 20 = 26-year SCD
Current outcome Employee A retained Employee B separated
Proposed system score 3+3+3 = 9 points 7+7+7 = 21 points
Proposed outcome Employee A separated Employee B retained

A 14-year tenure advantage disappears. This reversal is the rule's stated purpose, and it is also why AFGE National President Everett Kelley calls the rule "a blueprint for faster, less accountable mass firings."

The April 28 Asymmetry

On April 28, 2026, OPM issued a separate memo directing agencies to immediately stop applying performance appraisal requirements under 5 CFR Part 430 to Schedule C and Schedule G employees. Those are political appointees in the excepted service.

The interaction with the RIF rule matters. Career employees must keep formal annual ratings of record because those ratings will determine their RIF survival under the proposed system. Political appointees in Schedule C and G are now explicitly exempt from the same appraisal standards.

Combine that with the companion forced-distribution rule (2026-03619), which would cap top-two ratings at roughly 30% of staff, and you get a system where career staff compete for survival under capped ratings while the political layer is exempt from being rated at all. The April 28 memo is the breaking development this week, and it is worth raising in any comment you submit.

The forced-distribution comment period already closed March 26, 2026. The RIF appeals rule (2026-02576) closed March 12. The seniority rule is the last open comment period in the package.

What the Comment Record Showed, and What OPM Did With It

The comment period produced one of the most one-sided records in recent OPM rulemaking: roughly 1,250 comments on the appeals rule, 99% opposed, a figure OPM itself reported in the final preamble. The agency finalized the package anyway, with two changes worth knowing: it withdrew the proposed flexibility for unpaid furloughs longer than 30 days, and it added a requirement that agencies document any competitive area created fewer than 90 days before a RIF notice, a guardrail against drawing layoff boundaries around specific people.

The three arguments commenters made are now the arguments most likely to appear in court. They are worth preserving because the litigation phase is where this fight moves next.

Argument 1: Veterans preference is statutory, not regulatory.

"I oppose RIN 3206-AO86. The Veterans Preference Act of 1944 is a federal statute, and OPM does not have authority to convert categorical RIF protection into bonus points by regulation. If Congress wanted veterans preference to be defeasible by performance score, it would have said so. I ask OPM to withdraw the rule and submit any change of this scope to Congress for legislative action."

Argument 2: The system depends on fair ratings, and the companion rule prevents that.

"I oppose RIN 3206-AO86 because it cannot operate fairly alongside OPM's own forced-distribution rule (2026-03619), which would cap top-two ratings at roughly 30% of staff. If the majority of employees are mathematically forced into Level 3 ratings, every career employee in that group will have an identical 9-point performance score, and the retention order will revert to seniority and veterans preference anyway. The proposed rule cannot achieve its stated purpose under those conditions."

Argument 3: The April 28 asymmetry undermines the rule's premise.

"I oppose RIN 3206-AO86 because OPM's April 28, 2026 memo excludes Schedule C and Schedule G political appointees from the performance appraisal requirements that this rule would use as the primary factor in retaining career employees. A system that rates career staff under one standard and exempts political appointees from any standard is not a performance system. I ask OPM to either subject all federal employees to the same appraisal regime or withdraw the rule."

Calculate Your Severance Risk Before September 2

If your three-year rating history puts you below 15 points (two Outstanding plus one Fully Successful, or three Exceeds Fully Successful), you are at meaningful risk under the new system regardless of tenure. Run your numbers before any RIF notice arrives.

Use the free FedTools Severance Pay Calculator to estimate the lump sum you would receive if separated in a RIF. If your agency has offered Voluntary Early Retirement, the VERA Eligibility Checker tells you whether you qualify, and the FERS Retirement Calculator projects your annuity if you take it.

Run your severance numbers →

Frequently Asked Questions

When is the comment deadline for the OPM RIF seniority rule?

The public comment period closes Monday, May 4, 2026, at 11

PM Eastern. Submit at regulations.gov, document number 2026-04377 or docket OPM-2025-0097. This is the last open comment period in OPM's three-rule package.

What does the rule actually change?

The final rule amends 5 CFR Part 351 to make performance ratings, not seniority, the primary factor in deciding who keeps their job during a RIF. Your three most recent ratings within a four-year look-back are scored (Outstanding 7 points, Exceeds Fully Successful 5, Fully Successful 3, Level 1 or 2 = 0). Length of service becomes a tiebreaker only.

Why does DAV call the rule illegal?

Disabled American Veterans argues the Veterans Preference Act of 1944 is a statutory right Congress passed, and OPM cannot override a statute by issuing a regulation. The current categorical protection for 30%-disabled veterans (Subgroup AD) would become a 5-point bonus, which DAV says diminishes a statutory protection beyond what regulation can do.

Is the rule already final?

No. As of April 29, 2026, this is a proposed rule in the public comment stage. It does not apply to any RIF currently underway. Existing 5 CFR 351 rules still govern current RIFs. OPM could finalize the rule as early as summer 2026 after reviewing May 4 comments.

How would a 30-year career employee with Fully Successful ratings score?

Three Fully Successful ratings score 9 points (3+3+3). Any employee with two or more Exceeds Fully Successful or Outstanding ratings scores higher (15 or 21 points) and would be retained ahead of the 30-year employee. Decades of service carry no weight except as a tiebreaker.

Are veterans completely losing their preference?

Not eliminated, but converted, and this is now final law effective September 2. Veterans preference points are added to the performance score before tenure ordering: +5 for 30%-or-more disabled veterans, +3 for other preference-eligible veterans. The change is from categorical protection (cannot be displaced by a non-veteran regardless of ratings) to bonus points (can be outranked by a non-veteran with three Outstanding ratings).

What is the April 28 OPM memo and why does it matter for this rule?

On April 28, 2026, OPM issued a memo excluding Schedule C and Schedule G political appointees from performance appraisal requirements under 5 CFR Part 430. The new RIF rule uses ratings as the primary retention factor. Career employees must keep formal annual ratings; political appointees are now explicitly exempt from any equivalent rating standard. Critics call this an asymmetric system.

Why does OSC support a rule that unions oppose?

The Office of Special Counsel argues whistleblowers and consistent high performers are vulnerable under seniority-based RIFs because a retaliating manager can conduct a "performance-neutral" RIF that disproportionately separates strong performers. OSC's own filing notes the rule only works if ratings are administered fairly, which is why critics tie this rule to the companion forced-distribution cap.

Should I take VERA or early retirement instead of waiting?

If your agency has offered Voluntary Early Retirement, accepting it removes you from RIF competition. Whether it makes financial sense depends on your age, years of service, and projected annuity reduction. Use the VERA Eligibility Checker to verify and the FERS Retirement Calculator to model your annuity. Current RIFs still use the existing seniority system.

Does my comment actually count?

OPM is required by the Administrative Procedure Act to consider all timely public comments. A 2 to 3 sentence personal-impact comment is more persuasive than a long policy essay, especially if it describes how the rule would affect a real employee in a specific competitive area.

Sources: Federal Register 2026-04377 (RIN 3206-AO86) · DAV Statement, April 2026 · Stars and Stripes, April 20, 2026 · Task and Purpose, April 2026 · GovExec on OSC support · FedSmith, April 29, 2026 · eCFR 5 CFR Part 351