[brief] (AA0213-14)  On October 11, 2023, the Respondent Commission issued a FAA denying Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration on the “List Bypass Appeal” and again confirming its reliance on the false entry concerning September 6, 2022 and the improper “discipline history summary”:  The Commission noted that [...]’s disciplinary history included major discipline, more recent minor discipline, and counseling after the closing date.  Therefore, it found that [...]’s employment record was adverse to being a Lieutenant, a high-level law enforcement position.  (AA0010)  (emphasis added).  The Respondent Commission’s decision on Reconsideration reflects that, on one hand, the Commission understood that Appellant had demonstrated that the September 6, 2022 matter on the “discipline history summary” was an undisputed false entry, but it ignored this fact in denying her appeal, request for reconsideration and request for a hearing on the disciplinary record dispute.  (AA0011-15)  The Respondent Commission stated:  Concerning the September 6, 2022, incident, she presents that there were no written findings that were provided to her … she was never served any disciplinary action.  She disputes this incident, which is not part of her personnel file, and contends it should not be the basis for finding she has an adverse history.  [...] believes that if her removal from the list is going to be considered, there should at least be a hearing as there are factual disputes that need to be resolved before the Commission can make a proper decision.  (AA0011)  Despite the foregoing and despite the fact that Respondent [...] described it’s own exhibit as a “discipline history summary,” the Respondent Commission erroneously found that “the appointing authority presented [...]’s complete disciplinary history as a basis for it bypassing her name. ”  (AA0013)  The Respondent Commission’s decision improperly ignored Appellant’s point that the September 6, 2022 false entry was not part of her record or history and failed to grant a hearing to resolve this issue concerning the only entry which was after her promotion to Sergeant:  Additionally, while [...] argues that if her minor disciplinary history is to be considered, there should be a hearing as there are factual disputes, these incidents are part of her disciplinary history, and the Commission is not going to relitigate these issues.  … the Commission finds that this matter is properly reviewed on the written record as there are no material and controlling disputes of fact that can only be resolved by a hearing.  (AA0015)  The Commission erred by ignoring the fact it had only been provided an inaccurate “summary” of Appellant’s disciplinary history, which contained a false entry as the only entry subsequent to her promotion to Sergeant.  (AA0013-15)  Since Appellant was a disabled veteran who ranked first on the certified list, her promotional appointment was proper, or alternatively, there were material and controlling disputes of fact which required the granting of a hearing.  LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED BY DISREGARDING CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS AND DEPRIVING A DISABLED VETERAN OF HER VETERAN’S PREFERENCE WITHOUT PROPER BASIS (AA0001-8; AA0009-16)