Rotation agreements differ slightly between the different divisions of DOD. Under the rule, DOD required civilian staff to sign rotation agreements before working abroad, which the complainants and most of the members of ouag did.  Rotation agreements provide that if employees wish to continue working for DOD upon their return to the United States, they must either make use of their right of return if they still have it, or enroll in the Priority Placement Program („PPP“). The applicants accuse the United States of violating its contract by limiting workers to an extension of the 1230 sub-chapter project. They argue that, when signing their rotation agreement, they did so with the conviction that the 1981 version of the 1981 rule is still applicable and that they can therefore benefit from an unlimited number of extensions as long as their performance is satisfactory. They also assert that the United States is required to act in good faith in its contracts with citizens and should therefore apply the version of the 1981 normal rate. It is significant, however, that the CSO does not have the power to invalidate any agency policy or action. See 5 U.S.C 1214. According to the defendant`s analysis, the applicants are therefore correct in saying that there can be no judicial review of the general five-year rule in sub-chapter 1230 „Project“. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v.
Federal Maritime Comm`n, 402 F.2d 631, 633 (D.C.Cir.1968) In this regard, the Agency implemented the 1997 „project“ on the basis of the allegations of the complaint and had three years to „concretely“ assess its activities and make the necessary changes. It does not intend to modify or accept the „project.“ In the absence of an ongoing administrative procedure or a project ending with a verifiable final order, an agency`s „project“ decision may be reviewed as a final decision. See Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Ruckelshaus, 439 F.2d 584, 592 (D.C.Cir.1971). In these circumstances, such a „project“ must be considered as a „definitive“ agency action within the meaning of the review of the APP. CPM 301.4-2a (4) (highlighted and footnote added). The language was revived in August 1988 and DOD says it is currently in force. Def. The mem. 2.  The question arises as to whether there is a private right of action under 10.C. 1586, but since the court is granting the defendant`s application for release on other grounds, there is no need to answer this question.
 In order to rule on a motion for dismissal, the actual allegations of the appeal must be construed as true and frank in favour of the applicant. Shear v. National Rifle Ass`n of Am., 606 F.2d 1251, 1253 (D.C.Cir.1979). Therefore, the facts presented here are derived from the applicants` complaint. . DOD created PPP in the 1970s to find new jobs for civilian employees returning from overseas and losing the right to return to their previous positions and for employees whose ranks had increased during their international degree and who therefore decided not to return to their previous and lower positions. Under the PPP, workers returning to the United States choose a geographic area of the United States where they wish to work.