Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

1
U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board 

Annual Report 

Fiscal Year 2002 
Table of Contents 

Fiscal Year 2002 in Review..........................................................1 

Board Members ..........................................................................11 

Board Organization ....................................................................13 

Significant Judicial and Board Decisions Issued 

in FY 2002....................................................................................15 

FY 2002 Case Processing Statistical Data ...............................19 

Regional Decisions ...........................................................21 

Headquarters Decisions ...................................................27 

Summaries of Merit Systems Studies Issued in 2002.............33 

Fiscal Year 2002 Financial Summary .......................................37 

For Additional Information ........................................................39 
Fiscal Year 2002 in Review 

SEPTEMBER 11TH AND ANTHRAX – DEALING WITH THE AFTERMATH 

The Merit Systems Protection Board began Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 as it ended FY 2001, 

still dealing with the aftermath of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center 

and Pentagon and the anthrax-by-mail incidents. Shortly after the September 11th attacks, 

the Board announced variations from its normal case procedures to ensure that no party’s 

rights in an MSPB proceeding would be adversely affected by the events of that day. The 

announced variations applied both to cases processed in the Board’s New York Field 

Office and to filings due to any of its offices that were affected by office closures, 

communications failures, or mail disruptions. 

The New York Field Office, located just a few blocks from the World Trade Center, 

was evacuated following the September 11th attack and remained closed until late October. 

The Board’s headquarters in Washington closed soon after the attack on the Pentagon, and 

other MSPB offices throughout the country closed early that day. Telephone service was 

disrupted in New York, circuits were overloaded in Washington, and mail pickup and 

delivery were affected throughout the country. Each of these factors impacted the daily 

sending and receiving of documents in the process of adjudicating cases both at Board 

headquarters and in the regional and field offices. 

During the time the New York Field Office was closed, all filings due to that office 

were made instead with the Northeastern Regional Office in Philadelphia, and that office 

assisted parties to cases pending in the New York office. Administrative judges in all of 

the regional and field offices were authorized to exercise discretion in accepting filings due 

on September 11th that were made after that date. At headquarters, the Clerk of the Board 

was authorized to exercise similar discretion with respect to filings made there. Where an 

agency’s case files were destroyed in the attacks—as was the case with several Federal 

agencies in the World Trade Center—appropriate continuances were granted until the case 

files could be reconstructed, and MSPB offices assisted in the reconstruction of such files. 

Just a few weeks after the September 11th attacks, the Board was presented with another 

challenge to its case processing when anthrax-contaminated mail was discovered in 

Washington. With the sudden closure of Washington’s main mail sorting facility, and the 

decision to delay delivery of mail to Federal agencies until after it was treated, the Board’s 

headquarters had no incoming mail for the next month. Even after mail delivery was 

resumed, only a few filings were received each day. The Board’s ability to send case 

documents from its offices was also affected because, even after mail delivery to Federal 

agencies resumed, several agencies advised the Board that they would no longer accept 

documents sent by mail and asked that they be sent by facsimile or e-mail instead. 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

The Board announced the variations from its normal procedures after the September 

11th attacks through a press release, a notice on the MSPB website, and a notice published 

in the Federal Register. Updates on the operating status of the New York Field Office 

were posted to the website on a regular basis. Following the anthrax incidents, the Board 

posted a notice to its website advising parties of the status of mail delivery to MSPB 

headquarters and encouraging them to make filings by facsimile or commercial overnight 

delivery where possible. The notice also advised parties that if they did not receive an 

acknowledgment of a filing by mail within three weeks to call the MSPB office with which 

the filing was made. Numerous callers to both the headquarters and the regional and field 

offices were assisted. While mail delivery gradually returned to normal during the fiscal 

year, many of the special requests by agencies that Board orders and decisions be sent to 

them by facsimile or e-mail became part of the regular case processing routine. 

The procedures instituted by the Board in the aftermath of September 11th and the 

anthrax-by-mail incidents achieved its goal of ensuring that no party’s rights in an MSPB 

proceeding would be adversely affected by those events. In addition, the experience 

provided valuable “lessons learned” as the Board began to develop a Continuity of 

Operations Plan (COOP) to guide the agency through any similar events in the future. 

BOARD AND SENIOR STAFF CHANGES 

The Board entered FY 2002 at full strength, with its membership consisting of 

Chairman Beth S. Slavet, Vice Chairman Barbara J. Sapin, and Member Susanne T. 

Marshall. The expiration of the recess appointment of Vice Chairman Sapin in December 

2001, however, left the Board with a vacancy. Because the recess appointment of Ms. 

Slavet as Chairman also expired in December 2001, the Board found itself in a unique 

situation regarding the leadership of the agency. Under the Board’s governing statute, the 

Chairman serves as the chief executive and administrative officer of the agency. When the 

office of Chairman is vacant, the Vice Chairman serves as Acting Chairman. When the 

office of Vice Chairman is vacant, the remaining member becomes Acting Chairman. In 

this situation, however, there were two members remaining on the Board—Ms. Marshall 

and Ms. Slavet—neither of whom was Chairman or Vice Chairman. 

To provide for continuing executive and administrative leadership, Ms. Marshall and 

Ms. Slavet agreed to a shared-leadership arrangement during this interim period. They 

further agreed to retain the Chief of Staff appointed by Ms. Slavet so that the operations of 

MSPB offices, all of which report to the Chairman through the Chief of Staff, could 

continue without disruption. While major administrative decisions—such as filling the 

vacant Senior Executive Service (SES) positions—were deferred, the two Board members 

made all other administrative decisions jointly. 

On February 7, 2002, President Bush designated Ms. Marshall to serve as Vice 

Chairman of the Board and announced his intention to nominate her to be Chairman. With 

that designation, she became the Acting Chairman. Subsequently, on August 6, 2002, she 

received a recess appointment by the President to the position of Chairman. At the end of 

55 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

FY 2002, her nomination was pending confirmation by the United States Senate. Although 

Ms. Slavet’s term as a member of the Board ended on March 1, 2002, she stayed on under 

the provision of the Board’s governing statute that allows a member to serve for up to one 

year beyond the expiration of her term or until a successor is confirmed, whichever occurs 

first. She remained on the Board until March 1, 2003. 

After becoming Acting Chairman in February 2002, Ms. Marshall ensured a smooth 

transition by retaining the Chief of Staff appointed by Ms. Slavet for several more weeks. 

She also appointed her Chief Counsel as the Chief of Staff-designate, thus ensuring that the 

new incumbent of the position would be thoroughly familiar with MSPB operations. After 

working with the former incumbent on transition matters, the new Chief of Staff assumed 

his duties at the end of March. Chairman Marshall then moved quickly to fill the vacant 

SES position of Director of the Northeastern Regional Office in Philadelphia, selecting an 

experienced administrative judge from the Washington Regional Office. To ease the 

Director’s transition into his new position, the responsibility for supervision of the New 

York Field Office was transferred to the Washington Regional Office. At the beginning of 

June, Chairman Marshall filled three vacant SES positions at headquarters, selecting a 

long-time MSPB employee as the new Clerk of the Board and appointing experienced 

employees from other Federal agencies to the positions of Director, Office of Regional 

Operations, and Director, Office of Policy and Evaluation. At the end of FY 2002, only 

the Office of Appeals Counsel was still being managed by an Acting Director. 

In early November 2001, the Board’s Denver Field Office was relocated to a new 

facility in Lakewood, Colorado. The move took place over the Veterans Day holiday 

weekend, and the office was ready for business on Tuesday morning after the holiday. The 

relocation of the office was announced through an amendment to the Board’s regulations 

published in the Federal Register (67 Fed. Reg. 57841, Nov. 19, 2001), a press release, 

and a notice posted to the MSPB website. While this was the only relocation of an MSPB 

office during FY 2002, substantial improvements to the office environment were made in 

both the Atlanta Regional Office and the New York Field Office. 

ADJUDICATION OF CASES 

During FY 2002, the Board continued to address the full range of both substantive and 

procedural issues that arise in the matters over which it has jurisdiction. As in prior years, 

it issued significant decisions interpreting provisions of the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act (VEOA), and the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Other 

decisions dealt with such matters as the appeal rights of Assistant United States Attorneys, 

the scope of an employee’s right to a hearing under Chapter 77 of Title 5, and the 

appropriate burden of proof when an agency removes a member of the SES for refusal to 

accept a directed reassignment. The Board also applied significant decisions issued in FY 

2002 by the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 

the Board’s principal reviewing court. The section of this report titled “Significant Judicial 

and Board Decisions Issued in FY 2002” provides a discussion of the most significant 

Board and court decisions issued during the fiscal year. 

66 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Soon after she became Acting Chairman, Ms. Marshall reassigned responsibility for a 

pilot program at headquarters, the Expedited Petition for Review (PFR) Program, from the 

Office of the Clerk of the Board to the Office of Appeals Counsel (OAC). The purpose of 

the pilot is to identify PFRs that can be resolved quickly so that the Board can focus its 

resources on complex cases. Although the pilot was considered successful while located in 

the Office of the Clerk, where cases were reviewed by a single OAC attorney, Chairman 

Marshall believed that with the additional resources available in OAC, even better results 

could be achieved if responsibility for the pilot were reassigned to that office. Following 

the reassignment, the average processing time for PFRs at headquarters was reduced by 54 

days, or nearly two months, compared to a reduction of 33 days for a comparable period 

when the program was located in the Clerk’s Office. 

A new pilot program, the Mediation Appeals Project (MAP), was developed and 

launched during FY 2002. As reported in last year’s Annual Report, the work of the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Working Group culminated in the Board’s entering 

into a contract with two ADR experts to develop a pilot program to test the use of 

mediation in the Board’s appellate proceedings and to conduct mediation training for 

MSPB employees. Under the MAP, the parties to an appeal filed with an MSPB regional 

or field office are offered the opportunity to submit their dispute to a trained mediator. If 

the dispute cannot be resolved through that mediation, the appeal is returned to the regular 

adjudication process. Therefore, the MAP is intended to be a supplement to, not a 

replacement for, the Board’s existing settlement programs. 

During FY 2002, the Board announced MAP to all MSPB employees and solicited 

applications from employees interested in becoming mediators. This resulted in 15 MSPB 

employees being trained in transformative mediation techniques. Each of these trained 

mediators is to conduct three co-mediations with one of the contractors during the pilot 

period. Three MSPB regional offices are serving as pilot sites. The co-mediations are 

continuing in FY 2003 and, at the end of the pilot period, the results achieved by the pilot 

program will be evaluated. After the evaluation has been completed, the Board will 

determine whether the MAP will be continued. In the meantime, the Board’s existing 

settlement programs continue to be successful. In the regional and field offices, 54 percent 

of appeals that were not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, untimely filing, or other reasons 

were settled in FY 2002. At headquarters, settlements were achieved in 26 percent of the 

PFRs selected for the PFR Settlement Program. 

The suspended case pilot program, launched early in FY 2000, was incorporated into 

the Board’s standard adjudicatory procedures in FY 2002. This pilot tested whether 

allowing extended time for the parties to engage in discovery or settlement efforts could 

improve the Board’s case processing. If the parties to an appeal jointly request a 30-day 

suspension to pursue discovery or settlement efforts, the administrative judge will grant it, 

without requiring the parties to provide evidence and argument to support the request. A 

second 30-day suspension will be granted if the parties agree that further time is needed. 

The administrative judge also has discretion to grant a unilateral request for a second 30-

day extension. An evaluation of the pilot in FY 2001 concluded that the program 

77 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

facilitates due process while maintaining controls to ensure timely processing of appeals 

and recommended that the program be made permanent. The Board approved this 

recommendation early in FY 2002. Interim regulations were published January 28, 2002 

(67 Fed. Reg. 3811), and, following review of public comments, final regulations were 

published on September 19, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 58961). 

The Board made a major addition in FY 2002 to its public information materials that are 

intended to familiarize parties and representatives with the Board’s appellate procedures. 

It released a new video, “Introduction to Federal Employee Appeals with the Merit 

Systems Protection Board,” in October 2001. The half-hour video format permits an 

explanation of the Board’s appellate procedures in greater depth than is practical in the 

print publications the Board has disseminated for many years. The professionally 

produced video covers such subjects as filing an appeal, discovery procedures, pre-hearing 

submissions, the pre-hearing conference, the hearing, issuance of an initial decision, and 

further appeal rights. The video is available on tape in VHS format and on CD-ROM in 

both Windows and Mac formats. It can be ordered from the Clerk of the Board and is also 

available for viewing in the MSPB headquarters library and in the regional and field 

offices. The Board announced the availability of the video through issuance of a press 

release on October 15, 2001, and immediately began receiving numerous orders. A 

customer satisfaction survey was enclosed with each videotape and CD-ROM ordered, and 

the returns tabulated by the MSPB Office of Policy and Evaluation indicated a high 

customer satisfaction rate. 

MERIT SYSTEMS STUDIES 

During FY 2002, the Board issued four reports of merit systems studies conducted by 

its Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE). Three of these reports were based on new 

studies—a 20-year retrospective on the achievements and challenges of the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM), an examination of the Federal merit promotion process, 

and a study of how Federal job seekers are assessed in a delegated examining environment. 

The section of this report titled “Summaries of Merit Systems Studies Issued in FY 2002” 

provides brief summaries of the findings and recommendations from these reports. 

In response to the call of the National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker 

Commission) for input on issues affecting public service reform, OPE prepared a special 

report, “Making the Public Service Work: Recommendations for Change,” for submission 

to the Commission. This report, based on recommendations from past MSPB studies, 

highlighted various aspects of the human capital crisis and offered recommendations to 

improve human resources management in the Federal sector. 

With respect to workforce capacity problems, the report noted that these problems 

frequently result from the mismatch between the mission requirements of agencies and the 

number, types, and skills of agency employees. The report recommended that the Federal 

hiring process be simplified by reducing the number of special hiring authorities, replacing 

the Rule of Three with a category ranking system, terminating the Luevano consent decree, 

and encouraging the use of intern programs. [The report was issued several months prior 

88 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

to the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, which authorizes OPM to issue regulations 

allowing agencies to use category ranking systems.] The report also recommended 

improving candidate assessment through the use of better competency-based assessment 

tools. Additional recommendations included reshaping the workforce by authorizing early 

retirements and more flexible buyouts and allowing retirement-eligible employees to work 

part-time without a negative impact on their annuities. 

To enhance the Government’s personnel management capability, the report 

recommended adopting a simpler, more flexible classification system that could easily 

accommodate changes in organizational priorities and employee skills and assignments. It 

also recommended that pay banding be authorized in all agencies to increase the 

Government’s ability to offer competitive pay, tie pay raises to performance, and provide 

fair and attractive career paths to both technical and managerial employees. The report 

noted that the use of pay banding is supported by studies showing that it has the potential 

to raise organizational performance, increase managerial accountability, and help the 

Government attract and retain the talent it needs. The report also recommended that 

assessment and selection of managers focus on managerial skills, rather than technical 

skills, and that flexible supervisory probationary periods be permitted. 

Noting that the Government must transform its culture if it is to solve its human capital 

problems, the report explained that while the Government’s culture prizes fairness, 

openness, and neutrality, it also suffers from a distrustful working environment, risk 

aversion, and emphasis on command and control. The report recommended that the 

Government balance the authority and responsibility of managers better, explaining that 

mandated reviews of managerial actions and decisions made at higher organizational levels 

add to a distrustful environment. The report also recommended that agencies appoint chief 

human capital officers at the same level as chief financial officers and chief operating 

officers to integrate sound human capital strategies into agencies’ long-term plans and 

objectives. 

The Board issued four editions of the OPE newsletter, Issues of Merit, during FY 2002. 

Topics covered included the effects of both the Rule of Three and category ranking on the 

employment of veterans, differences in attitudes between minority and non-minority 

Federal employees, the status of the advancement of women in the Federal Government, 

alternatives to competitive procedures for promoting employees with known skills and 

abilities, and the effectiveness of recruitment tools used by agencies. 

 

The OPE staff also continued to serve as a valuable resource for the Board in meeting 

internal agency research needs. Its principal service in this regard during FY 2002 was its 

design of the survey of customers of the new appeals process video and its tabulation and 

evaluation of the returns. The OPE staff also conducted one of its periodic surveys of the 

customers of MSPB studies and evaluated the results during FY 2002. 

99 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

CUSTOMER SERVICE INITIATIVES 

In addition to releasing its new appeals process video, the Board took a number of other 

steps in FY 2002 aimed at increasing both the amount and usefulness of the information it 

makes available to its customers. The Office of the Clerk completed the major project of 

adding to the decisions database on the MSPB website key precedential Board decisions 

issued between the inception of the agency in 1979 and 1994, when the website was 

launched. (Decisions issued since 1994 have been posted to the website when issued.) In 

addition, a complete redesign of the website was begun during the fiscal year and was 

subsequently implemented in February 2003. 

Early in the fiscal year, as an added service to its customers, the Board implemented 

two list servers (listservs) on its website. One provides e-mail notification to subscribers 

when new Board decisions are added to the website and includes links to the actual 

decisions. The other notifies subscribers when a new report of a merit systems study or a 

new edition of Issues of Merit is published. The e-mail notice for the latter listserv 

includes a link to the press release announcing the new report or a link to the actual Issues 

of Merit newsletter. Interested persons may subscribe to either or both listservs on the 

MSPB website by entering a user name and e-mail address. (Subscriptions are also 

available through the Government Printing Office listserv website.) 

A major customer service project for the MSPB, as for all Federal agencies, during FY 

2002 was the development and publication of Information Quality Guidelines. Section 515 

of the Treasury & General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001 (Public Law No. 

106-554) required all agencies to: (1) develop and publish agency guidelines for ensuring 

and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated 

by the agency; (2) establish an administrative mechanism to allow affected persons to 

obtain correction of information disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the 

guidelines; and (3) report periodically to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on 

the number and nature of complaints received regarding information disseminated by the 

agency and how the complaints were resolved. The law required individual agency 

guidelines to be based on governmentwide guidelines promulgated by OMB and posted to 

the agency’s website by October 1, 2002. 

With the Office of the Clerk coordinating the project, all MSPB offices first identified 

the information they produce for dissemination to the public and then reviewed the internal 

procedures they employ to ensure the quality of that information. Because effective 

quality control procedures were already in place with respect to most disseminated 

information, few changes in procedures were necessary. As required by OMB, the Board 

published draft Information Quality Guidelines to its website on May 1, 2002. After the 

required public comment period, a few revisions were made at the request of OMB, 

primarily to promote uniformity in agency guidelines throughout the Executive Branch. 

The Board published a notice in the Federal Register on September 27, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg.

61168), announcing that its Information Quality Guidelines were available on its website 

and would be effective as of October 1, 2002. As stated in the introduction to the MSPB 

Guidelines, their purpose is to ensure that information disseminated by the MSPB is 

1010 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner; is useful to the intended 

users; and is protected from unauthorized access or revision. As a part of the redesign of 

its website, the Board created an “Information Quality” page that contains the MSPB 

Guidelines, information on how to file a complaint alleging that disseminated information 

does not comply with the Guidelines, and related information. 

LEGISLATION 

The Board’s legislative liaison activity during FY 2002 focused primarily on 

reauthorization and appropriations. Because the previous authorization for the Board was 

due to expire at the end of FY 2002, reauthorization legislation was introduced in the 2nd

session of the 107th Congress. The reauthorization language was originally included in a 

bill to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act but was ultimately enacted as part of a bill 

to authorize certain employees to make catch-up contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan 

(H.R. 3340). Enacted as Public Law No. 107-304 on November 27, 2002, the 

reauthorization is for a 5-year period, through the end of FY 2007. While the FY 2002 

appropriation for the MSPB was enacted in November 2001, the agency did not receive its 

FY 2003 appropriation until enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for that 

year (H.J. Res. 2, Public Law No. 108-7) on February 20, 2003. 

Among the new laws enacted during FY 2002, perhaps the one of greatest significance 

to the MSPB was the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Public Law No. 107-71, 

which was signed by the President on November 19, 2001. This law established a major 

new Federal agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), within the 

Department of Transportation. [On March 1, 2003, the TSA became part of the 

Department of Homeland Security.] It was estimated that TSA would eventually have 

60,000 to 70,000 employees. While a substantial number of employees were to be 

transferred from security operations at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 

new agency was expected to hire around 50,000 airport screeners. The law provided that 

TSA employees would initially be covered by the same personnel system that applies to 

employees of the FAA, which includes appeal rights to the Board. However, it gave the 

head of the TSA authority to modify that system for application to TSA employees. In 

addition, the law gave the agency head unreviewable authority to hire, discipline and 

terminate TSA screeners, notwithstanding any other provision of law. From the Board’s 

standpoint, these statutory provisions meant that new issues could be expected to arise in 

appeals filed by TSA employees regarding the extent of the Board’s jurisdiction over the 

employee filing the appeal and the precise personnel rules that applied at the time the 

personnel action was taken. Fewer than a dozen appeals from TSA employees were 

received in the MSPB regional and field offices during the first year of TSA operations, 

and only one initial decision in a TSA appeal had reached the Board for review by January 

2003. 

The new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created by the Homeland 

Security Act, enacted as Public Law No. 107-296 on November 25, 2002, less than two 

months after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report. The Act provides 

unprecedented authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the 

1111 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to prescribe personnel rules for 

DHS employees. It permits the waiver of many provisions of the Title 5 civil service 

system, including provisions that authorize appeals of various personnel actions to the 

Board. The Act requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the OPM Director to 

consult with the Board, prior to issuing regulations for the DHS personnel system, 

regarding the extent to which the Title 5 provisions governing appeals to the Board should 

be applied to DHS employees. In carrying out its required consultative role, the Board’s 

principal concern will be to ensure that DHS employees are afforded adequate due process 

with respect to adverse personnel actions. The Board’s experience in dealing with 

employee appeals over the years should provide a valuable perspective as the Secretary 

and the Director develop the regulations for a human resources management system, 

including procedures for appeals, that address the unique requirements of this new 

department.

1212 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

The MSPB Annual Report is no longer required by statute but is published as a service to 

the Board’s customers. (The statutory requirement for an annual report was “sunset” by 

the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act, Public Law 104-66, as amended by Public 

Law 106-113.) The Annual Report is intended to be a companion to the annual 

Performance Report required by the Government Performance and Results Act. The FY 

2002 Performance Report was issued on February 27, 2003, and contains additional 

information regarding the Board’s achievements in FY 2002. 

1313 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Board Members 

CHAIRMAN 

SUSANNE T. MARSHALL was appointed by President Bush on August 6, 2002, to 

serve as Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board. She had served as Acting Chairman of the 

Board since February 7, 2002, when President Bush 

designated her Vice Chairman. (Under the Board’s 

governing statute, the Vice Chairman serves as 

Acting Chairman when the position of Chairman is 

vacant.) She has been a member of the Board since 

November 17, 1997, following her nomination by 

President Clinton and confirmation by the Senate. 

From December 1985 until her appointment to the 

Board, she served on the Republican staff of the 

Committee on Governmental Affairs of the United 

States Senate as both Professional Staff and Deputy 

Staff Director. While on the committee staff, she 

was responsible for a variety of legislative issues 

under the committee’s jurisdiction, including Federal 

workforce policies, civil service matters, and postal 

issues. From 1983 to 1985, she was Republican Staff Assistant to the House Government 

Operations Committee. She was Legislative Assistant to a Member from Georgia from 

1981 to 1982. Ms. Marshall attended the University of Maryland branch campus in 

Munich, Germany, and the American University. 

The bipartisan Board consists of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and a Member, 

with no more than two of its three members from the same political party. Board 

members are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve 

overlapping, non-renewable 7-year terms.

1414 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

MEMBER 

NEIL A.G. McPHIE was appointed by President Bush to serve as a member of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board on April 23, 2003. Prior to 

joining the Board, he was Senior Assistant Attorney 

General in the Office of the Attorney General of 

Virginia. Among other responsibilities, he defended 

employment discrimination claims brought under 

Federal law and wrongful discharge claims brought 

under state law. Previously, he was Executive 

Director of the Virginia Department of Employment 

Dispute Resolution (EDR). In that position, he 

directed implementation of EDR’s statewide 

grievance, mediation, training and consultation 

programs. He was an Assistant Attorney General in 

the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia from 

1982 to 1988. From 1976 until he joined the 

Attorney General’s Office, he was a Trial and 

Appellate Attorney in the Office of the General 

Counsel at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission. He received his J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 

1976. He received a B.A. in Economics from Howard University in 1973, graduating 

magna cum laude. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to the bars of the 

District of Columbia, Virginia, New York and Iowa, the United States Supreme Court, the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, several of the United States 

circuit courts of appeals, and district courts in Virginia 

BETH S. SLAVET served as Chairman of the Board under a recess appointment that 

expired with the adjournment of Congress on December 21, 2001. She served as Member 

of the Board for the remainder of FY 2002 and continued in that position until March 1, 

2003. She joined the Board as a member and Vice Chairman in August 1995, and from 

March 2000 until December of that year, she also served as Acting Chairman. Prior to her 

appointment to the Board, she served as Labor Counsel to the Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources of the United States Senate. 

BARBARA J. SAPIN served as a member and Vice Chairman of the Board under a 

recess appointment that expired with the adjournment of Congress on December 21, 2001. 

Prior to her appointment in December 2000, she served as General Counsel to the 

American Nurses Association (ANA). 

1515 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Board Organization 

The Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Member adjudicate the cases brought to the 

Board. The Chairman, by statute, is the chief executive and administrative officer of the 

Board. Office heads report to the Chairman through the Chief of Staff. 

The Office of Regional Operations oversees the ten MSPB regional and field offices, 

which receive and process appeals and related cases. Administrative judges in the regional 

and field offices are responsible for adjudicating assigned cases and for issuing fair and 

well reasoned initial decisions. 

The Office of the Administrative Law Judge adjudicates and issues initial decisions in 

corrective and disciplinary action complaints (including Hatch Act complaints) brought by 

the Special Counsel, proposed agency actions against administrative law judges, MSPB 

employee appeals, and other cases assigned by the Board. (The functions of this office are 

currently performed by administrative law judges at the National Labor Relations Board 

under an interagency agreement.) 

The Office of Appeals Counsel conducts legal research and prepares proposed 

decisions for the Board in cases where a party petitions for review of a judge’s initial 

decision and in all other cases decided by the Board, except for those cases assigned to the 

Office of the General Counsel. The office also conducts the Board’s petition for review 

settlement program and the expedited petition for review pilot program, prepares proposed 

decisions on interlocutory appeals of rulings made by judges, makes recommendations on 

reopening cases on the Board’s own motion, and provides research and policy memoranda 

to the Board on legal issues. 

The Office of the Clerk of the Board receives and processes cases filed at Board 

headquarters, rules on certain procedural matters, and issues the Board’s decisions and 

orders. The office serves as the Board’s public information center, coordinates media 

relations, produces public information publications, operates the Board’s Library and online information services, and administers the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act 

programs. The office also certifies official records to the courts and Federal administrative 

agencies, and manages the Board’s records and directives systems, legal research 

programs, and the Government in the Sunshine Act program. 

The Office of the General Counsel, as legal counsel to the Board, provides advice to 

the Board and MSPB offices on matters of law arising in day-to-day operations. The 

office represents the Board in litigation, prepares proposed decisions for the Board on 

assigned cases, and coordinates the Board’s legislative policy and congressional relations 

functions. The office also drafts regulations, conducts the Board’s ethics program, and 

plans and directs audits and investigations. 

The Office of Policy and Evaluation carries out the Board’s statutory responsibility to 

conduct special studies of the civil service and other merit systems. Reports of these 

1616 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

studies are directed to the President and the Congress and are distributed to a national 

audience. The office responds to requests from Federal agencies for information, advice, 

and assistance on issues that have been the subject of Board studies. The office also 

provides oversight of the agency’s human resources management function and administers 

the cross-servicing agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s APHIS Business 

Services for human resources management services. 

The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity plans, implements, and evaluates the 

Board’s equal employment opportunity programs. It processes complaints of alleged 

discrimination and furnishes advice and assistance on affirmative action initiatives to the 

Board’s managers and supervisors. 

The Office of Financial and Administrative Management administers the budget, 

procurement, property management, physical security, and general services functions of 

the Board. It develops and coordinates internal management programs and projects, 

including review of internal controls agencywide. It also administers the agency’s crossservicing agreements with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center 

for payroll services and the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt for 

accounting services. 

The Office of Information Resources Management develops, implements, and 

maintains the Board’s automated information systems to help the Board manage its 

caseload efficiently and carry out its administrative and research responsibilities.

CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN

General Counsel

Equal 

Employment

Clerk of the 

Board

Administrative 

Law Judge Regional 

Operations Appeals Counsel Policy and 

Evaluation

Regional Offices 

Atlanta, Chicago, 

Philadelphia, 

San Francisco, and 

Washington, DC 

MEMBER

Field Offices 

Boston, Dallas, 

Denver, 

New York, and 

Seattle 

Financial and 

Adminstrative 

Management

Information 

Resources 

Management

Chief of Staff

Merit Systems Protection Board

Human Resources Management services are provided by 

USDA's APHIS Business Services. 

Payroll services are provided by USDA's 

National Finance Center.

 Accounting services are provided by the 

 Bureau of the Public Debt.

1717 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Significant Judicial and Board Decisions 

Issued in FY 2002 

When deciding cases, the Board is bound by applicable precedent from the Supreme 

Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

In FY 2002, the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit issued several significant decisions 

relevant to the Board’s adjudicatory function. 

The Supreme Court’s opinion in U.S. Postal Service v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 122 S. Ct. 

431 (November 13, 2001), arose directly from a Board case. At issue in Gregory was the 

question whether the Board is precluded from considering a prior disciplinary action that is 

pending in a grievance proceeding when the Board reviews the reasonableness of a penalty 

imposed by the agency for subsequent misconduct. The Court found that the Board may 

consider such prior discipline. As a practical matter, the Court observed that if the Board 

had to wait until the grievance process was completed, undue delay could result. Further, 

if the Board were forced to ignore prior discipline that was pending in grievance, agencies 

would effectively be prevented from relying on an employee’s disciplinary record when 

defending a later action before the Board. Both principles are illustrated in 

Guzman-Muelling v. Social Security Administration, 91 M.S.P.R. 601 (June 14, 2002). 

In Guzman-Muelling, the agency suspended the appellant for 30 days. In selecting that 

penalty, the agency considered the appellant’s past disciplinary record, which consisted of 

a 3-day suspension and a 10-day suspension. The appellant had filed grievances from both 

the 3-day and the 10-day suspensions, and the grievances were still pending at the time of 

the Board appeal. Applying the Court’s decision in Gregory, the Board considered both of 

the prior suspensions in determining whether the 30-day suspension was reasonable. The 

Board noted in particular that the appellant had taken no action on either grievance since 

requesting an arbitrator for each in 1999. Thus, undue delay in the Board proceedings was 

avoided by not requiring the Board to wait until the grievances were resolved, and the 

agency was able to rely on the prior discipline in supporting its choice of a 30-day 

suspension for the most recent misconduct. 

In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & 

Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S. Ct. 1835 (November 13, 2001), the Supreme 

Court defined “prevailing party” for purposes of an award of attorney fees. It stated that a 

“prevailing party” is one who has been awarded some relief by the court or who has gained 

a settlement agreement enforced through a court-ordered consent decree. A party therefore 

is entitled to attorney fees only where there is a judicially sanctioned change in the parties’ 

legal relationship. In Sacco v. Department of Justice, 90 M.S.P.R. 37 (September 4, 2001), 

the Board recognized the applicability of the Buckhannon rule to fee awards made under 5 

U.S.C. § 7701(g), which allows an award of attorney fees only to a “prevailing party.” The 

Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision in Sacco. Sacco v. Department of Justice,

Nos. 02-3043, -3050 (Federal Circuit January 21, 2003). 

1818 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

An example of how the Board has applied Buckhannon can be found in Cole v. 

Department of Justice, 90 M.S.P.R. 627 (December 20, 2001). The Board determined that 

the appellant in Cole was not a “prevailing party” because the agency had completely 

rescinded the action before the Board issued a decision on the merits of the appeal. In such 

a situation, the appellant did not receive an enforceable judgment on the merits or a courtordered consent decree, as required by Buckhannon. 

 

A Supreme Court decision that may potentially affect the way in which the Board 

reviews claims of disability discrimination is Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. 

v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 122 S. Ct. 681 (January 8, 2002). There, the Court held that, 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the inquiry in deciding whether an individual is 

“substantially limited” in doing manual tasks must focus on whether the individual has an 

impairment that prevents or severely restricts the performance of activities that are of 

central importance to most people’s daily lives, not whether he is unable to perform the 

specific manual tasks associated with his job. The impairment’s impact also must be 

permanent or long term. The Board did not have occasion in FY 2002 to directly apply the 

holding in Toyota Motor to a disability discrimination claim. 

Fiscal Year 2002 saw the Federal Circuit issue several notable opinions interpreting 

sections of Title 5 of the United States Code. In Delos Santos v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 289 F.3d 1382 (May 17, 2002), the court found that the Board’s decision to 

review an Office of Personnel Management regulation is, by the terms of 5 U.S.C. 

§ 1204(f)(1), within the Board’s “sole discretion.” The court stated that it may review the 

Board’s refusal to grant regulation review only if, in doing so, the Board considered the 

merits of the underlying agency action. 

The Federal Circuit construed section 3330a(d)(1) of Title 5 in Lapuh v. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, 284 F.3d 1277 (March 21, 2002). It found that the Veterans 

Employment Opportunities Act of 1998, of which that statutory provision was a part, did 

not give the Board jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of violations of veterans’ preferences 

when the alleged violations occurred before the October 31, 1998, effective date of that 

Act. 

In Roman v. Central Intelligence Agency, 297 F.3d 1363 (July 29, 2002), the court 

interpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8415(e)(1)(B), which governs the proration of an annuity to reflect 

service performed on a part-time basis. The court held that the statute should be construed 

consistent with the desire of Congress to ensure equitable treatment for full-time 

employees who convert to part-time status. The court therefore rejected a construction of 

the statute that would treat imputed service as part-time service simply because it was 

preceded by a period of part-time work. To use such a methodology to calculate an 

annuity would, in the court’s opinion, dramatically penalize employees who, despite the 

onset of illness, try to work at least part time before applying for disability retirement. 

In a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for the staffing of the veterans’ 

health care system, the Federal Circuit held in James v. Von Zemenszky, 284 F.3d 1310 

(April 1, 2002), that although the statute at 38 U.S.C. § 7421(a) gives the Secretary of the 

1919 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Department of Veterans Affairs the authority to prescribe “the hours and conditions of 

employment” of health-care professionals, such employees are nonetheless entitled to the 

reduction-in-force procedures of Title 5 during “staffing adjustments.” 

 

The Board also issued several other noteworthy decisions in FY 2002. In Rusin v. 

Department of the Treasury, 92 M.S.P.R. 298 (September 4, 2002), the Board announced a 

new test for establishing jurisdiction in an individual right of action (IRA) appeal brought 

under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Board stated that an appellant establishes 

Board jurisdiction over an IRA appeal by merely exhausting proceedings before the Office 

of Special Counsel and making non-frivolous allegations that he made a protected 

disclosure that was a contributing factor in a covered personnel action. The earlier 

jurisdictional test required an appellant to actually prove by preponderant evidence that he 

made a protected disclosure, that the agency had taken a covered personnel action, and that 

he had exhausted Special Counsel proceedings. 

 

The Board in Hamlett v. Department of Justice, 90 M.S.P.R. 674 (January 25, 2002), 

decided a question that had arisen in prior cases, but which never had to be reached, 

namely, whether Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) have Board appeal rights 

from adverse actions under Chapter 75 of Title 5. Even though the statute at 28 U.S.C. 

§ 542(b) states that “[e]ach [AUSA] is subject to removal by the Attorney General,” the 

Board found no provision in Title 5 excluding AUSAs from coverage under Chapter 75 or 

any indication in the legislative history of the pertinent civil service statutes showing 

congressional intent that AUSAs not have Board appeal rights under Chapter 75. On the 

contrary, the Board noted legislative history showing that Congress intended attorneys at 

the Department of Justice to fall within the definition of “employee” in 5 U.S.C. § 7511. 

Thus, the Board held that AUSAs are not excluded from the provisions of Chapter 75 by 

virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 542(b). 

Another appeal in which the Board looked to the legislative history of a statute was 

Shenwick v. Department of State, 92 M.S.P.R. 289 (September 4, 2002). The issue in 

Shenwick concerned the burden of proof applicable to the removal of a member of the 

Senior Executive Service (SES) for refusing a directed reassignment. In part because the 

legislative history of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 shows that Congress intended 

the SES to be a mobile corps of managers who may be expeditiously reassigned to meet 

shifting agency needs, the Board found that an agency need not prove that removal of an 

SES employee promotes the efficiency of the service. Rather, the agency need only show 

that the SES employee was qualified for the reassignment, as required under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3395(a)(1)(A), and that it removed the employee for refusal to accept the reassignment, 

which is cause for removal under 5 U.S.C. § 7543(a). 

The issue of burden of proof also arose in Bloomer v. U.S. Postal Service, 

90 M.S.P.R. 324 (November 14, 2001). There, the Board described the burdens of proof 

that apply in appeals filed under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act of 1994. The Board determined that if the appellant shows by preponderant 

evidence that his uniformed service was a substantial or motivating factor in the agency’s 

adverse decision, the burden shifts to the agency to prove that it would have taken the same 

action absent the protected status.

2020 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

As noted above, the Federal Circuit in Von Zemenszky held that health-care 

professionals in the Department of Veterans Affairs are generally entitled to the 

reduction-in-force procedures of Title 5 during “staffing adjustments.” The Board, 

however, in Beckstrom-Parcell v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 91 M.S.P.R. 656 

(June 25, 2002), noted a statutory exception to this rule. The Board observed that 

appointments of Department of Veterans Affairs health-care professionals under 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7405(a)(1) are made “without regard to civil service ... laws, rules, or regulations.” In 

view of that language, the Board found that employees appointed under 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7405(a)(1) are exempt from Title 5 reduction-in-force procedures, which are part of the 

civil service laws and regulations.

With respect to Board procedures, the opinion in Crickard v. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 92 M.S.P.R. 625 (September 30, 2002), set forth the scope of an appellant’s right 

to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). In that case, the administrative judge held a 

videoconference hearing instead of the in-person hearing that the appellant had requested. 

The Board ruled that, under section 7701(a), a request for an in-person hearing may not be 

denied by an administrative judge in the absence of a showing of good cause. 

In Pawn v. Department of Agriculture, 90 M.S.P.R. 473 (December 28, 2001), the 

Board applied the “interest of justice” standard set forth in the attorney fees provision of 

5 U.S.C. § 7701(g)(1). It held that, when an employee’s removal had been found to be 

based solely on his criminal conviction, and when that conviction was overturned on 

appeal, the employee was “substantially innocent” of the charges on which the removal 

was based. The appellant therefore was entitled to an award of attorney fees in “the 

interest of justice.” The Board also held that this rule applied even where the conviction 

was overturned based on a violation of the employee’s constitutional rights, rather than on 

the merits of the criminal charge. 

 

Finally, in Gizzarelli v. Department of the Army, 90 M.S.P.R. 269 (December 10, 2001), 

the Board weighed contrasting public-policy concerns in deciding whether to enforce a 

provision in a settlement agreement. Even though public policy favors settlement 

agreements, the Board held that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce a provision 

in a settlement agreement that requires the appellant’s former employing agency to 

withhold criminal or police records from the Office of Personnel Management where such 

information was requested as part of a background check and was relevant to the 

Government position sought by the appellant.

2121 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

FY 2002 Case Processing Statistical Data 

CASES DECIDED BY MSPB IN FY 2002 

Cases Decided in MSPB Regional/Field Offices 

(RO/FOs):

 Appeals 6,378 

 Addendum Cases 1 723 

 Stay Requests 2 93 

TOTAL Cases Decided in RO/FOs 7,194 

Cases Decided by Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs) - Original Jurisdiction Only 3

22 

Cases Decided by the Board:

 Appellate Jurisdiction: 

 PFRs - Appeals 1,073 

 PFRs - Addendum Cases 124 

 Reviews of Stay Request Rulings 0 

 Requests for Stay of Board Order 1 

 Reopenings 4 6 

 Court Remands 6 

 Compliance Referrals 62 

 EEOC Non-concurrence Cases 0 

 Arbitration Cases 3 

 Subtotal – Appellate Jurisdiction 1,275 

 Original Jurisdiction 5 9 

 TOTAL Cases Decided by the Board 6 1,284 

 TOTAL Cases Decided (Board, ALJs, RO/FOs) 8,500 

See next page for footnotes.

2222 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

FOOTNOTES TO TABLE 

1 Includes 213 requests for attorney fee awards, 7 requests for compensatory damages 

(discrimination cases only), 1 request for consequential damages (whistleblower cases 

only), 361 petitions for enforcement, 124 Board remand cases, and 17 court remand 

cases. 

2 Includes 50 stay requests in whistleblower cases and 43 in non-whistleblower cases. 

3 Initial decisions issued by ALJs. Case type breakdown: 2 court remands and 1 

reopening in Office of Special Counsel (OSC) disciplinary actions (non-Hatch Act), 5 

Hatch Act cases, 1 request for stay of a Board order in a Hatch Act case, 11 actions 

against ALJs, and 2 requests for attorney fees in ALJ cases. 

4 Includes 4 cases reopened by the Board on its own motion and 2 cases where OPM 

requested reconsideration. 

5 Board decisions. Case type breakdown: 2 OSC stay requests, 1 PFR on a petition for 

enforcement in an OSC corrective action, 1 PFR in a Hatch Act case, 1 PFR in an action 

against an ALJ, and 4 requests for regulation review. 

6 In addition to the 1,284 cases closed by the Board with a decision or order, there were 5 

interlocutory appeals decided by the Board in FY 2002. Interlocutory appeals typically 

raise difficult issues or issues not previously addressed by the Board. 

2323 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Regional Decisions

2424 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

DISPOSITION OF APPEALS DECIDED 

IN FY 2002 BY TYPE OF CASE 

Type of Case Decided Dismissed 

Not 

Dismissed Settled Adjudicated 

Adverse Action by 

 Agency 

2980 1353 45% 1627 55% 1096 67% 531 33%

Termination of 

 Probationers 

434 389 90% 45 10% 36 80% 9 20%

Reduction in Force 223 148 66% 75 34% 35 47% 40 53%

Performance (Chapter 43) 118 34 29% 84 71% 51 61% 33 39%

Acceptable Level of 

 Competence (WIGI) 

40 23 58% 17 43% 13 76% 4 24%

Suitability 189 58 31% 131 69% 98 75% 33 25%

CSRS Retirement: Legal 592 269 45% 323 55% 16 5% 307 95%

CSRS Retirement: 

 Disability 

183 76 42% 107 58% 9 8% 98 92%

CSRS Retirement: 

 Overpayment 

149 54 36% 95 64% 62 65% 33 35%

FERS Retirement 564 221 39% 343 61% 136 40% 207 60%

FERCCA 40 26 65% 14 35% 0 0% 14 100%

Individual Right of 

 Action 

260 198 76% 62 24% 41 66% 21 34%

Other 606 528 87% 78 13% 36 46% 42 54%

Total 6378 3377 53% 3001 47% 1629 54% 1372 46%

Dismissed and Not Dismissed columns are percentages of Decided column 

Settled and Adjudicated columns are percentages of Not Dismissed column 

TYPES OF APPEALS DECIDED IN FY 2002 

Termination of Probationers (434) 

7%

Reduction in Force

 (223) 3% Suitability

(189) 3%

Acceptable Level of Competence 

(40) 1%

CSRS Retirement: Legal

 (592) 9%

Performance 

(118) 2%

Other Appeals

(606) 10% Adverse Action

(2980) 46%

CSRS Retirement: Disability

(183) 3%

FERCCA

(40) 1% Individual Right of Action

(260) 4%

FERS Retirement

(564) 9%

CSRS Retirement: Overpayment

(149) 2%

Total Number of Appeals: 6,378 

2525 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN FY 2002 THAT WERE NOT DISMISSED 

Mitigated (38)

1%

Settled (1629)

54%

Other (10)

0%

Affirmed (1021)

34%

Reversed (303)

10%

Total Number of Appeals that were Not Dismissed: 3,001 

(Percentages do not total 100% because of rounding) 

DISPOSITION OF APPEALS ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS 

(i.e., Not Dismissed or Settled) IN FY 2002 

Other (10)

1%

Affirmed (1021)

74%

Reversed (303)

22%

Mitigated (38)

3%

Based on 1,372 appeals adjudicated on the merits 

2626 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

APPEALS DECIDED IN FY 2002 BY AGENCY 

Decided Dismissed1

Not 

Dismissed1 Settled2 Adjudicated2

US Postal Service 1442 814 56.4% 628 43.6% 450 71.7% 178 28.3%

Office, Personnel Mgmt* 1413 542 38.4% 871 61.6% 234 26.9% 637 73.1%

Veterans Affairs 499 288 57.7% 211 42.3% 133 63.0% 78 37.0%

Justice 450 261 58.0% 189 42.0% 125 66.1% 64 33.9%

Navy 361 219 60.7% 142 39.3% 85 59.9% 57 40.1%

Treasury 361 210 58.2% 151 41.8% 95 62.9% 56 37.1%

Army 338 168 49.7% 170 50.3% 105 61.8% 65 38.2%

Defense 262 153 58.4% 109 41.6% 64 58.7% 45 41.3%

Air Force 213 101 47.4% 112 52.6% 73 65.2% 39 34.8%

Agriculture 194 126 64.9% 68 35.1% 56 82.4% 12 17.6%

Interior 163 87 53.4% 76 46.6% 41 53.9% 35 46.1%

Transportation 125 64 51.2% 61 48.8% 36 59.0% 25 41.0%

Health & Human Serv 110 54 49.1% 56 50.9% 34 60.7% 22 39.3%

General Service Adm 57 43 75.4% 14 24.6% 2 14.3% 12 85.7%

Social Security Adm 50 35 70.0% 15 30.0% 8 53.3% 7 46.7%

Commerce 45 24 53.3% 21 46.7% 13 61.9% 8 38.1%

Labor 41 28 68.3% 13 31.7% 9 69.2% 4 30.8%

Housing & Urban Dev 38 27 71.1% 11 28.9% 9 81.8% 2 18.2%

Energy 20 13 65.0% 7 35.0% 4 57.1% 3 42.9%

NASA 15 8 53.3% 7 46.7% 5 71.4% 2 28.6%

Smithsonian Inst 15 6 40.0% 9 60.0% 7 77.8% 2 22.2%

Education 12 9 75.0% 3 25.0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3%

FDIC 12 8 66.7% 4 33.3% 3 75.0% 1 25.0%

SBA 12 8 66.7% 4 33.3% 4 100.0% 0 .0%

EEOC 11 8 72.7% 3 27.3% 2 66.7% 1 33.3%

TVA 11 7 63.6% 4 36.4% 0 .0% 4 100.0%

State 9 5 55.6% 4 44.4% 3 75.0% 1 25.0%

Other 9 9 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

FCC 6 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 .0% 1 100.0%

Court Serv & Offend Super 

Agency for DC 

5 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 4 100.0% 0 .0%

FEMA 5 5 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

GPO 5 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 3 75.0% 1 25.0%

NLRB 5 5 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Chemical Safety Hazard 

Investigation Bd 

4 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

EPA 4 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3%

National Credit Union Adm 4 2 50.0% 2 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0%

Nuclear Regulatory Com 4 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 1 100.0%

US International 

Development Agency 

4 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

2727 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

APPEALS DECIDED IN FY 2002 BY AGENCY 

(continued) 

Decided Dismissed1

Not 

Dismissed1 Settled2 Adjudicated2

Boundary & Water Com: 

US/MEX 

3 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 0 .0% 2 100.0%

Commodity Futures Trading 

Com 

3 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 2 100.0% 0 .0%

Consumer Product Safety 

Com 

3 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 2 100.0% 0 .0%

Corp for National & 

Community Service 

3 0 .0% 3 100.0% 0 .0% 3 100.0%

Gov of the District of 

Columbia 

3 3 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Merit Systems Protection 

Bd 

3 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 2 100.0% 0 .0%

NARA 3 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 2 100.0% 0 .0%

National Transportation 

Safety Bd 

3 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

Adm Office of US Courts 2 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Broadcasting Board of 

Governors 

2 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

Federal Mediation & 

Conciliation Serv 

2 0 .0% 2 100.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0%

Security & Exchange Com 2 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Selective Service Sys 2 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

US Com on Civil Rights 2 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

African Development 

Foundation 

1 0 .0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

Armed Forces Retirement 

Home 

1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Export/Import Bank of US 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Fed Housing Finance Bd 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Inter American Foundation 1 0 .0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corp 

1 0 .0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

RR Retirement Bd 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Soldiers' & Airmen's Home 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

TOTAL 6378 3377 52.9% 3001 47.1% 1629 54.3% 1372 45.7%

* Most appeals in which OPM is the agency are retirement cases involving decisions made by OPM as the 

administrator of the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. 

1

 Percentages in columns "Dismissed" and "Not Dismissed" are of "Decided." 

2

 Percentages in columns "Settled" and "Adjudicated" are of "Not Dismissed."

2828 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

APPEALS ADJUDICATED* IN FY 2002 BY AGENCY 

Adjudicated Affirmed Reversed 

Mitigated 

Modified Other 

US Postal Service 178 127 71.3% 42 23.6% 9 5.1% 0 .0%

Office, Personnel Mgmt. 637 444 69.7% 182 28.6% 3 .5% 8 1.3%

Veterans Affairs 78 58 74.4% 18 23.1% 2 2.6% 0 .0%

Justice 64 53 82.8% 5 7.8% 6 9.4% 0 .0%

Navy 57 46 80.7% 9 15.8% 2 3.5% 0 .0%

Treasury 56 48 85.7% 5 8.9% 2 3.6% 1 1.8%

Army 65 59 90.8% 5 7.7% 1 1.5% 0 .0%

Defense 45 38 84.4% 3 6.7% 4 8.9% 0 .0%

Air Force 39 29 74.4% 3 7.7% 7 17.9% 0 .0%

Agriculture 12 11 91.7% 1 8.3% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Interior 35 28 80.0% 5 14.3% 1 2.9% 1 2.9%

Transportation 25 16 64.0% 9 36.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Health & Human Serv 22 14 63.6% 8 36.4% 0 .0% 0 .0%

General Service Adm 12 11 91.7% 0 .0% 1 8.3% 0 .0%

Social Security Adm 7 5 71.4% 2 28.6% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Commerce 8 6 75.0% 2 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Labor 4 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Housing & Urban Dev 2 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Energy 3 3 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

NASA 2 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Smithsonian Inst 2 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Education 1 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

FDIC 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

EEOC 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

TVA 4 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

State 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

FCC 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

GPO 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

EPA 1 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

National Credit Union Adm 1 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Nuclear Regulatory Com 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Boundary & Water Com: 

US/MEX 

2 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Corp for National & 

Community Service 

3 3 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Fed Mediation & 

Conciliation Service 

 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

TOTAL 1372 1021 74.4% 303 22.1% 38 2.8% 10 .7%

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 

* ADJUDICATED means adjudicated on the merits, i.e., not dismissed or settled. 

2929 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Headquarters Decisions

3030 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON APPEALS 

DECIDED IN FY 2002 BY TYPE OF CASE 

Type of Case Decided Dismissed Settled Denied 

Denied 

Reopened Granted 

Adverse Action by 

 Agency 

465 45 9.7% 8 1.7% 358 77.0% 17 3.7% 37 8.0%

Termination of 

 Probationers 

63 3 4.8% 3 4.8% 56 88.9% 0 .0% 1 1.6%

Reduction in Force 27 3 11.1% 0 .0% 21 77.8% 3 11.1% 0 .0%

Performance (Ch. 43) 9 1 11.1% 0 .0% 6 66.7% 0 .0 2 22.2%

Acceptable Level of 

 Competence (WIGI) 

6 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 4 66.7% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Suitability 18 2 11.1% 0 .0% 13 72.2% 2 11.1% 1 5.6%

CSRS Retirement: 

 Legal 

130 10 7.7% 1 .8% 106 81.5% 4 3.1% 9 6.9%

CSRS Retirement: 

 Disability 

40 6 15.0% 0 .0% 28 70.0% 2 5.0% 4 10.0%

CSRS Retirement: 

 Overpayment 

12 0 .0% 1 8.3% 9 75.0% 2 16.7% 0 .0%

FERS Retirement 106 6 5.7% 3 2.8% 82 77.4% 3 2.8% 12 11.3%

FERCCA 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Individual Right of 

 Action 

67 3 4.5% 1 1.5% 47 70.2% 9 13.4% 7 10.5%

Other 129 7 5.4% 6 4.6% 95 73.6% 13 10.1% 8 6.2%

Total 1073 87 8.1% 24 2.2% 826 77.0% 55 5.1% 81 7.6%

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON 

APPEALS DECIDED IN FY 2002 

Denied but Reopened (55)

5%

Settled (24)

Granted (81) 2%

8% Dismissed (87)

8%

Denied (826)

77%

Total Number of Petitions for Review: 1,073 

3131 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON 

APPEALS GRANTED IN FY 2002 

Case Remanded (47)

58%

Initial Decision Reversed 

(21)

26%

Other (1)

1% Initial Decision Affirmed 

(11)

14%

Agency Action Mitigated 

(1)

1%

Based on 81 Petitions for Review Granted 

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON 

APPEALS DENIED BUT REOPENED IN FY 2002 

Agency Action Mitigated 

(0) 0%

Initial Decision Affirmed 

(20) 36%

Other 

(10) 18%

Initial Decision Reversed 

(4) 7%

Case Remanded 

(21) 38%

Based on 55 Petitions for Review Denied But Reopened 

(Percentages do not total 100% because of rounding) 

3232 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DECIDED IN FY 2002 BY AGENCY 

Decided Dismissed Settled Denied 

Denied 

Reopened Granted 

Office, Personnel 

Mgmt* 

285 22 7.7% 5 1.8% 228 80.0% 11 3.9% 19 6.7%

US Postal Service 211 18 8.5% 3 1.4% 166 78.7% 5 2.4% 19 9.0%

Army 87 9 10.3% 0 .0% 73 83.9% 2 2.3% 3 3.4%

Veterans Affairs 78 5 6.4% 0 .0% 60 76.9% 5 6.4% 8 10.3%

Navy 64 3 4.7% 1 1.6% 46 71.9% 4 6.2% 10 15.6%

Justice 62 5 8.1% 6 9.7% 41 66.1% 6 9.7% 4 6.4%

Treasury 48 2 4.2% 1 2.1% 39 81.2% 1 2.1% 5 10.4%

Air Force 43 6 14.0% 4 9.3% 25 58.1% 4 9.3% 4 9.3%

Agriculture 38 3 7.9% 1 2.6% 27 71.0% 6 15.8% 1 2.6%

Defense 30 2 6.7% 0 .0% 24 80.0% 1 3.3% 3 10.0%

Transportation 24 4 16.7% 0 .0% 16 66.7% 3 12.5% 1 4.2%

Interior 20 3 15.0% 1 5.0% 14 70.0% 0 .0% 2 10.0%

Social Security 

Adm 

13 1 7.7% 0 .0% 10 76.9% 2 15.4% 0 .0%

Labor 10 0 .0% 0 .0% 9 90.0% 1 10.0% 0 .0%

Health & Human 

Serv 

8 0 .0% 1 12.5% 6 75.0% 1 12.5% 0 .0%

General Service 

Adm 

7 0 .0% 0 .0% 7 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Smithsonian Inst 5 1 20.0% 0 .0% 4 80.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Commerce 4 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Housing & Urban 

Dev 

4 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Government of the 

DC 

4 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

NASA 4 0 .0% 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

EEOC 3 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 .0%

Court Serv & 

Offend Super 

Agency for DC 

2 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

FCC 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

3333 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DECIDED IN FY 2002 BY AGENCY 

(continued) 

Decided Dismissed Settled Denied 

Denied 

Reopened Granted 

FEMA 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Broadcasting 

Board of 

Governors 

1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Chemical Safety 

Hazard 

Investigation Bd 

1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Education 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Energy 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

EPA 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0

%

Farm Credit Adm 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Federal Election 

Com 

1 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0

%

Federal Housing 

Finance Bd 

1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Merit Systems 

Protection Bd 

1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

NARA 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Nuclear 

Regulatory Com 

1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Other 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Selective Service 

Sys 

1 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

TVA 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

US International 

Development 

Agency 

1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

TOTAL 1073 87 8.1% 24 2.2% 826 77.0% 55 5.1% 81 7.6%

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

* Most appeals in which OPM is the agency are retirement cases involving decisions made by OPM as the 

administrator of the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. 

3434 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Summaries of Merit Systems Studies Issued in 

2002 

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Retrospect: Achievements and Challenges 

After Twenty Years

This retrospective report, based on two decades of MSPB observation and oversight, 

addressed the overall performance of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rather 

than the results of each of the agency’s programs and activities. The report cited the 

agency’s achievements but focused in particular on issues that cause concern or deserve 

continuing scrutiny. Overall, the Board found that OPM’s performance has been marked 

by many successes, but that a number of programs need attention. 

OPM has succeeded in achieving the Civil Service Reform Act’s vision of a 

decentralized civil service, improved human resources oversight, and the fostering of a 

diverse and family-friendly workplace. However, OPM needs to strengthen its leadership 

in areas such as compensation and staffing. The Government’s classification and 

compensation systems have long been deemed antiquated and inapplicable to today’s work 

and workers. Similarly, staffing Federal jobs remains a problem from the perspective of 

both supervisors and the candidates who might be interested in public service. For 

example, the Government has policies and practices that conflict with or detract from a 

merit-based employment system. One of these, the Rule of Three, is based on law 

originally established over 100 years ago and, for decades, has been cited by Federal 

managers as an impediment to efficient, effective hiring. The Board first recommended in 

1994 that the Rule of Three be abolished, and has continued to advocate this position. 

The Board also found use of the noncompetitive Outstanding Scholar hiring authority to 

be problematic. While the authority makes it easy for managers to hire candidates with a 

3.5 grade point average, it removes from consideration those who may have all the right 

qualities for the job but do not have the required academic standing. African-Americans 

and Hispanics, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this program, are just as likely, 

if not more likely, to be hired using merit-based hiring methods rather than this 

noncompetitive authority. On several occasions, OPM warned agencies not to misuse this 

hiring authority, but did not take action to terminate the authority, even though it is no 

longer necessary to ensure appropriate representation of African-Americans and Hispanics 

in the workforce. 

The report also points out that OPM has not adequately championed the development 

and use of the best candidate assessment tools possible, except on a reimbursable basis, 

which is not helpful to some resource-strapped agencies. In addition, while OPM has 

devoted many resources over the years to the development of assessment tools, including 

tests of cognitive ability, the agency has not actively encouraged agencies to use cognitive 

testing. This kind of testing is one of the better predictors of future job performance, and 

OPM has not been an active advocate for its use. 

3535 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

There are multiple reasons for OPM’s lack of vigorous leadership in eliminating these 

problems. Insufficient resources is a chronic problem. A massive systemic overhaul, such 

as is needed for the Federal compensation system, may require a sizable investment. There 

may be a temptation to allocate scarce resources to projects in which the objectives are 

more easily achieved, and leave other, more problematic, undertakings for another time. 

The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. Outcome 

This study of the Federal merit promotion program was based on a survey of 

supervisors, employees, and union representatives. The Board reported that the merit 

promotion procedures used to fill vacancies in Federal agencies generally result in 

decisions that conform with the merit principle that requires decisions on employee 

advancement to be made solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after 

fair and open competition which ensures that all receive equal opportunity. The study also 

determined, however, that there are problems associated with the Federal merit promotion 

process—among them, that it is resource intensive and time consuming. 

Although the vast majority of the supervisors participating in the study were satisfied 

with the individuals they selected to fill vacancies using the merit promotion process, they 

were not positive about all aspects of the merit promotion process. They expressed two 

basic concerns—the merit promotion process, on at least some occasions, was seen as 

adding little of value in helping identify the best qualified candidate for promotion, and the 

process took too long and was often too resource intensive. 

In general, most employees also agreed with the supervisors that the entire process takes 

far too long. Although members of both groups may have been unrealistic in their beliefs 

concerning how quickly a vacancy can be filled, the Board’s research revealed that they 

have reason to be concerned about the time it can take to accomplish some of the 

administrative activities that support the merit promotion process. At the same time, the 

reductions in human resources staffs that have occurred in many organizations may make it 

difficult to greatly improve operations unless there are some significant changes made in 

the merit promotion process itself. 

Both employees and union representatives were also concerned about the bases on 

which supervisors make promotion decisions. In particular, many employees believed they 

and other people in their organizations had been unfairly passed over for promotions 

because the selecting official had already made a decision before the vacancy was 

announced. Further, many employees and union representatives said those decisions were 

not always based on merit but instead took into consideration non-merit factors such as 

loyalty to the supervisor and connections to other important people in the Government. 

Not surprisingly, supervisors typically disagreed with this assessment. 

Among the report’s recommendations were that Federal employers develop valid new 

approaches to assessing applicants for jobs, including those involving merit promotions; 

share information widely among employees about the number of anticipated promotion 

opportunities and the criteria to be applied in selecting from among applicants for those 

opportunities; improve processing of merit promotion action tasks by servicing personnel 

3636 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

offices; and explore the expansion of merit-based but noncompetitive alternatives to some 

actions currently taken under competitive merit promotion procedures. 

Assessing Federal Job-Seekers in a Delegated Examining Environment 

In this report, the Board found that employee selection processes vary widely among 

Federal agencies and do an uneven job of predicting how well candidates are likely to 

perform. The report noted that the ability of commonly used assessment tools to predict 

future job performance varies widely, and that one of the tools agencies most often use—

rating candidates’ training and experience—can be one of the least predictive. 

Federal departments and agencies operate almost 700 delegated examining units 

(DEUs) that assess job applicants. Although the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

establishes standards for the operation of DEUs and periodically reviews their operations, 

DEUs operate with substantial independence. Agencies most often assess job applicants 

through reviewing their training and experience, followed by interviewing them and 

conducting reference checks. One MSPB concern is that some agencies view the 

assessment process as a cost rather than an investment and find minimal assessment 

acceptable. Another concern is a lack of expertise among agencies in candidate 

assessment, raising the likelihood that some agency assessment processes may appear to be 

reasonable but actually do a poor job of predicting future performance. The report also 

noted, however, that some agencies have taken a strategic view of candidate assessment, 

are using very good assessment processes, and have documented tangible benefits for this 

investment. 

The report recommended that OPM increase its efforts to develop valid candidate 

assessment tools and make them available to agencies. It further recommended that OPM 

pay greater attention to addressing the costs of developing assessment tools so that cost 

alone does not prevent DEUs from having access to the best tools available. Among the 

report’s recommendations to agencies were that they take a strategic view of candidate 

assessment and that they emphasize the importance of making effective use of the 

probationary period for new hires. 

Making the Public Service Work: Recommendations for Change 

This report to the National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker Commission) is 

discussed in the section of this report titled “Fiscal Year 2002 in Review.”

3737 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

Fiscal Year 2002 Financial 

Summary 

(dollars in thousands)

FINANCIAL SOURCES 

Appropriations $30,533 

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund 2,520 

Reimbursements 9 

Total Revenue $33,062 

OBLIGATIONS INCURRED 

Personnel Compensation $20,577 

Personnel Benefits 4,265 

Benefits, Former Employees 19 

Travel of Persons 541 

Transportation of Things 73 

Rental Payments 2,832 

Communications, Utilities, and Miscellaneous 

Charges 

693 

Printing and Reproduction 81 

Other Services 2,947 

Supplies and Materials 375 

Equipment 622 

Total Obligations Incurred $33,025 

OBLIGATED BALANCE $37 

3838 
Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report 

For Additional Information 

The MSPB website contains information about the Board 

and its functions, where to file an appeal, and how the 

Board’s adjudicatory process works. 

At the website, you can get Board regulations, appeal and 

PFR forms, important telephone and FAX numbers, and email addresses for the headquarters, regional, and field 

offices. 

Complete decisions from July 1, 1994, and significant 

precedential decisions issued from 1979 to 1994 are 

available for downloading. The website also provides 

weekly Case Summaries—an easy way to keep up with 

changes in Board case law. 

From the website, you can download recent Board reports 

and special studies on civil service issues. 

You can also subscribe to one of two list servers (listservs) 

on the website—one to receive Board decisions as they are 

posted, and the other to receive notification when a merit 

systems studies report is issued. 

The Board’s website is 

http://www.mspb.gov. 

The Board’s toll-free telephone 

number is 1-800-209-8960. 

3939