The Army's Fast-Track Removal Directive: Seven Days to Act, Seven Days to Answer, No Improvement Period

Bottom line

The Army has told supervisors to begin removing civilian employees with unacceptable performance within seven days and to finish most cases within about 30 ^{[1, 2]}. The directive skips the improvement period civil service law ordinarily provides, gives employees seven days to answer, and pairs the faster process with buyouts that cost the employee appeal rights ^{[2, 3]}. Stars and Stripes reports that it was released July 7 and took effect immediately ^[1].

What happened: Army Directive 2026-18

Army Directive 2026-18, “Modern Civilian Workforce Management,” is an eight-page memo released July 7, according to Stars and Stripes ^[1]. FEDweek reports that Army Secretary Dan Driscoll signed it ^[2]. Stars and Stripes reports that it covers civilians of the Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard, both appropriated-fund and nonappropriated-fund (NAF) ^[1]. Both outlets reported on it July 28 ^{[1, 2]}.

How we got here. On September 30, 2025, the Defense Department issued a memo titled “Separation of Employees with Unacceptable Performance” ^[3]. On June 30 of this year, the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service turned it into a supervisor’s handbook ^[3]. The handbook tells supervisors that if performance “warrants removal at any time, you must act with speed and conviction” ^[3]. The Army directive applies that approach to the Army’s own workforce ^{[1, 2]}. The workforce it governs has already shrunk: GAO counted 190,780 Army civilians in September 2025, and the department as a whole went from 793,155 civilians on January 1, 2025 to 714,780 a year later ^[5]. FEDweek puts the Army at 188,000 now ^[2].

The timeline for appropriated-fund employees, as Stars and Stripes describes it ^[1]:

• 7 days: the supervisor asks the personnel office to start the action after identifying unacceptable performance. FEDweek describes the trigger as an unacceptable rating ^[2].
• 10 days: the personnel office and the legal office review the evidence ^{[1, 3]}.
• 7 days: the employee replies, orally or in writing ^{[1, 2]}.
• 30 days from the written notice: a higher-level official decides ^[1].

NAF employees follow a 40-day track: 10 calendar days of review and 30 calendar days to decide ^[1].

The directive is direct about its purpose. “Commanders are directed to ensure supervisors expeditiously separate civilian employees with unacceptable performance,” it says, as quoted by Stars and Stripes ^[1].

Other provisions, according to FEDweek ^[2]:

• It “ends the use of tables of penalties in cases of alleged misconduct.”
• “Suspensions should not be substituted for removals to the extent removal is warranted.”
• Buyouts, early retirement and deferred resignation may be used to speed departures, if the employee waives appeal rights.
• It encourages “time-off awards, cash performance awards and quality step increases” for high performers, and loosens leave without pay for employees following a military or civilian spouse to a new duty station.

What it means for you: chapter 43, chapter 75 and the missing improvement period

The legal mechanics. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 gives agencies two roads to remove a poor performer ^[4]. Chapter 43 requires a chance to demonstrate acceptable performance, the familiar PIP, and 30 days’ advance notice, and the agency need show only substantial evidence on appeal ^[4]. Chapter 75 was built for misconduct. It requires at least 30 days’ notice and at least seven days to answer, with no improvement period, but the agency must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence ^[4]. The Army is using chapter 75 ^[2]. The Defense handbook says plainly that “a PIP is not required” ^[3].

That is the trade. Employees lose the improvement period. The Army takes on the heavier burden of proof if a removal is appealed ^{[2, 3, 4]}. The handbook also keeps the Douglas factors, the 12 considerations a deciding official must weigh before choosing a penalty ^[3]. FEDweek’s account of the directive does not say how ending penalty tables fits with that requirement ^{[2, 3]}.

Career and career-conditional employees in the GS and wage-grade workforce are the main group affected ^[3]. The handbook says supervisors should not wait for a progress review or the annual appraisal to propose removal ^[3].

Employees in bargaining units. The handbook’s seven-day reply period applies “unless a union agreement specifies otherwise” ^[3]. The Army directive goes further, according to FEDweek: contract terms allowing more time are to be ended “at the earliest opportunity” ^[2]. The directive does not, as reported, define that phrase. The July 28 memo on OPM’s bargaining guidance described how existing contract terms survive a new rule only until the contract’s term ends. Readers should also note that Executive Order 14251 removed most Defense Department components from collective bargaining coverage, with listed exceptions ^[6]. Whether a given Army contract still binds the Army depends on that order, which the reporting on the directive does not address ^{[2, 6]}.

Employees offered a way out. Once a removal is proposed, the handbook lists four tools: an individualized deferred resignation, a voluntary separation incentive payment, voluntary early retirement and a last chance agreement ^[3]. Each runs through a settlement agreement. The Defense sample waives any challenge to the resignation “before the MSPB, EEOC, or any other forum” ^[3]. Employees 40 and older keep 45 days to consider the agreement and seven days to revoke it ^[3]. Outside that window, the sample says the employee cannot rescind ^[3].

Who is outside it. The handbook excludes probationary employees without full appeal rights, Schedule C and Schedule Policy/Career employees, and the Senior Executive Service ^[3]. NAF employees are outside chapters 43 and 75 altogether, which is why the directive gives them their own track ^{[1, 3]}.

Supervisors. The deadlines run against you, too. If no decision issues within 30 days, the Defense handbook sends the case file to the Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, and a decision short of removal sends a redacted file there as well ^[3]. Granting an employee more time to reply does not move the 30-day decision requirement ^[3].

Contractors. As reported, the directive governs Army civilian personnel ^{[1, 2]}. It creates no obligations for contractor staff.

Questions you’re probably asking

Does the Army still have to give me a performance improvement plan before firing me?

Not under this process. The Defense handbook the directive follows says a PIP is not required and a supervisor may go straight to a proposed removal ^{[2, 3]}. That is possible because the action runs under the misconduct chapter, where the agency must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence ^{[2, 3, 4]}.

How long do Army civilians have to respond to a proposed removal under Army Directive 2026-18?

Seven days, orally or in writing ^{[1, 2]}. FEDweek reports that union contract terms allowing more time are to be ended at the earliest opportunity ^[2].

Does Army Directive 2026-18 apply to Army Reserve, National Guard and NAF employees?

Yes, according to Stars and Stripes: it covers civilians of the Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard, both appropriated-fund and nonappropriated-fund ^[1]. NAF employees follow a separate 40-day track because chapters 43 and 75 do not apply to them ^{[1, 3]}.

If I take a deferred resignation or VERA after a proposed removal, can I still appeal to the MSPB?

Generally no. The incentives are offered through a settlement agreement, and the Defense sample agreement waives challenges before the MSPB, the EEOC or any other forum ^{[2, 3]}. Employees 40 and over keep a 45-day review period and a seven-day revocation window ^[3].

What happens if the deciding official misses the 30-day decision deadline?

Under the Defense handbook, HR must send the case file to the Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness ^[3]. A decision short of removal triggers the same review with a redacted file ^[3].

What I’m watching

• Command-level implementation: whether Army commands publish local procedures, and how quickly they move to end longer reply periods in union contracts ^[2].
• First appeals: removals under this process will reach the MSPB, where the Army carries the preponderance burden ^{[2, 4]}. No date has been set for any case.
• Other services: the Defense handbook applies department-wide ^[3]. Whether the Navy and Air Force issue directives of their own is open.