PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 26, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 16, 2016. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Official Personnel File Enhancement Act
(Sec. 2) This bill requires that a permanent notation be made in the official personnel record file of a federal employee in the competitive or excepted service who is the subject of a personnel investigation and who resigns prior to the resolution of such investigation, if an adverse finding is made against such employee at the close of such investigation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill defines "personnel investigation" to include: (1) an investigation by an Inspector General; and (2) an adverse personnel action as a result of performance, misconduct, or for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service under provisions relating to performance appraisals or adverse actions.
The agency employing such employee shall make such notation within 40 days after the resolution of such investigation.
Prior to making such notation, the agency shall:
notify the employee in writing within 5 days of such resolution and provide such employee a copy of the adverse finding and any supporting documentation,
provide the employee at least 30 days to respond in writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence to show why the adverse finding was unfounded, and
provide a written decision regarding such notation and the specific reasons to the employee at the earliest practicable date.
The bill entitles an employee to appeal the agency's decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Such an appeal shall be noted in the employee's file while the appeal is pending. If the employee is the prevailing party on appeal, the agency shall remove the notation regarding the adverse finding from the employee's file within two weeks after the Board issues its decision.
(Sec. 3) The bill requires any federal government appointing authority to review and consider the personnel file of a former federal employee who is a candidate for a position within the competitive or excepted service prior to appointing or reinstating such employee to such a position.
People & committees
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1983)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1983)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4360.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1983-1984)
Mr. Chaffetz moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 348.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-454.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-454.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4360 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4360 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4360 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4360 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.