Merit Systems Protection Board

Performance and Accountability Report

FY 2003

November 25, 2003
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- ii -

FOREWORD

With the enactment of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act (Public Law 107-289) on 

November 7, 2002, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) became subject to a statutory 

requirement to file an annual audited financial statement with the President and Congress. 

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided guidance to agencies 

newly subject to this requirement in a memorandum dated December 6, 2002. Under that 

OMB guidance, such agencies must now comply with OMB Bulletin 01-09, “Form and 

Content of Agency Financial Statements,” which requires that the annual audited financial 

statement be combined with the annual performance report required by the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Such a combined report is termed a Performance and 

Accountability Report (PAR). Subsequently, OMB made optional the requirement to file a 

PAR for FY 2003 for agencies covered by the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act (OMB 

memorandum from Mark W. Everson dated March 21, 2003). However, such agencies must 

file a PAR for FY 2004 and subsequent years.

To help prepare the agency to meet the PAR requirement next year, the Merit Systems 

Protection Board has chosen to file a PAR for FY 2003. This document, therefore, includes 

both the FY 2003 performance report required by GPRA and the FY 2003 financial report. 

The financial report section of the PAR also includes the annual report on internal controls 

required by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). In addition, the MSPB 

has incorporated into the PAR information that was previously included in the MSPB Annual 

Report, which will no longer be published as a separate document. Such information includes 

a discussion of the most significant Board and court decisions issued during the fiscal year, 

FY 2003 case processing statistics, and summaries of the Board’s reports of merit systems 

studies that were issued during the fiscal year.

Although the deadline for submission of the FY 2003 PAR is January 30, 2004, OMB has 

announced that, beginning in November 2004, the annual PAR will be due on November 15 

each year (45 days after the end of the fiscal year). This short deadline will preclude the 

MSPB’s having the PAR printed before the due date. Therefore, beginning with this PAR for 

FY 2003, the MSPB will duplicate and bind copies of the PAR sufficient for the required 

distribution to the President, OMB, and Congress and will make the PAR available in 

electronic form on the MSPB website (www.mspb.gov). The PAR will be printed at a later 

date, and copies may be ordered from the Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 

1615 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20419.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- iii -

TABLE Of CONTENTS

Section Page

Management Discussion and Analysis...............................................................................1

Mission ......................................................................................................................1

Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................1

Board Members .........................................................................................................4

Board Organization....................................................................................................6

Performance Goals and Results.................................................................................8

Financial Statements..................................................................................................10

Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance ................................................................11

Trends and Issues.......................................................................................................13

FY 2003 Performance Report.............................................................................................16

Strategic Plan Goal 1 To consistently provide fair, timely, and efficient 

adjudication of cases filed with the Board.................................................................16

Objective 1 – Issue high quality decisions.................................................................16

Objective 2 – Issue timely decisions at both the regional office and 

Board headquarters levels.....................................................................................17

Objective 3 – Hold increase in overall average case processing cost to 

no more than the percentage increase in operating costs, adjusted for 

the changes in the number of decisions issued .....................................................19

Objective 4 – Obtain customer input regarding the adjudicatory process.................20

Strategic Plan Goal 2 To make effective use of alternative methods of 

dispute resolution in Board proceedings ...................................................................22

Objective 1 – Continue the successful use of alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) procedures in MSPB proceedings at both the 

regional office and Board headquarters levels......................................................22

Strategic Plan Goal 3 To provide information, analyses, and 

recommendations on Federal personnel programs, policies, and 

initiatives to policymakers, Federal agencies and employees, and others 

with an interest in Federal human resources management ........................................25

Objective 1 – Conduct governmentwide merit systems studies that 

provide information on, and analyses of, the state of Federal merit 

systems and the Federal workforce to policymakers, Federal 

agencies and employees, and others with an interest in Federal 

human resources management; raise the level of consciousness and 

initiate or participate in the debate about implementing and 

maintaining effective human resources management programs, 

policies, and practices that adhere to the merit system principles........................25
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- iv -

Objective 2 – Determine through merit systems studies the extent to 

which Executive Branch departments and agencies operate in a 

manner consistent with the statutory merit system principles and the 

extent to which prohibited personnel practices occur in the Federal 

workplace..............................................................................................................32

Strategic Plan Goal 4 To strengthen the MSPB’s internal systems and 

processes to support a continually improving, highly effective and 

efficient organization with the flexibility to meet program needs.............................34

Objective 1 – Develop and implement an integrated electronic case 

processing system that allows appellants and agencies to file and 

receive documents electronically and streamlines internal case 

processing .............................................................................................................34

Objective 2 – Improve electronic access via the Internet and other 

available resources to MSPB case-related decisions, procedures and 

guidance................................................................................................................36

Objective 3 – Identify, test, and implement, as appropriate, new 

technologies that will increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve 

customer service ...................................................................................................38

Strategic Plan Goal 5 To develop the MSPB’s human resources to ensure a 

continually improving, highly effective and efficient organization with 

the flexibility to meet program needs........................................................................39

Objective 1 – Recruit, train, and retain skilled, highly motivated 

employees to effectively and efficiently accomplish the MSPB 

mission..................................................................................................................39

FY 2003 Financial Report...................................................................................................42

Financial Statements for the Years Ended September 30, 2003 and 

2002 ......................................................................................................................42

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Years Ended September 30, 

2003 and 2002.......................................................................................................49

Independent Auditor’s Reports..................................................................................56

Management Representation Letter...........................................................................59

Significant Board Decisions Issued in Fiscal Year 2003 With Related Opinions 

Issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ........................62

FY 2003 Case Processing Statistics....................................................................................67

Summaries of Merit Systems Studies Issued in FY 2003 .................................................79

For Additional Information................................................................................................82
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 1 -

Merit Systems Protection Board

Performance & Accountability Report

FY 2003

MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Mission

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent quasi-judicial agency 

established to protect Federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited 

personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for employees against abuses by agency 

management. The Board carries out its statutory mission principally by:

 Adjudicating employee appeals of personnel actions over which the Board has jurisdiction, 

such as removals, suspensions, furloughs, and demotions;

 Adjudicating appeals of administrative decisions affecting an individual’s rights or benefits 

under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees’ Retirement System;

 Adjudicating employee complaints filed under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), the 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), and the 

Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA);

 Adjudicating cases brought by the Special Counsel, principally complaints of prohibited 

personnel practices and Hatch Act violations;

 Adjudicating requests to review regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

that are alleged to require or result in the commission of a prohibited personnel practice—or 

reviewing such regulations on the Board’s own motion;

 Ordering compliance with final Board orders where appropriate; and

 Conducting studies of the Federal civil service and other merit systems in the Executive 

Branch to determine whether they are free from prohibited personnel practices.

Jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction

Agency personnel actions that Federal employees may appeal to the Board include: adverse 

action (removal, reduction in grade or pay, suspension for more than 14 days, or furlough for 30 

days or less); performance based removal or reduction in grade; denial of within-grade increase; 

termination of a probationary employee; separation, demotion, or furlough for more than 30 days 

by reduction in force; employment suitability determination; and denial of various restoration, 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 2 -

reinstatement, or reemployment rights. Administrative determinations affecting retirement rights 

or interests under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees’ Retirement 

System are also appealable to the Board.

When an issue of discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or other 

applicable anti-discrimination law is raised in connection with an appealable personnel action, 

the Board has jurisdiction over both the appealable action and the discrimination issue. Such 

appeals are termed “mixed cases.” In these cases, an appellant may ask the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review the final decision of the Board. If the EEOC 

disagrees with the Board’s decision on the discrimination issue, the case is returned to the Board. 

The Board may concur with EEOC, affirm its previous decision, or affirm its previous decision 

with modifications. If the Board does not concur in the EEOC decision, the case is referred to a 

Special Panel for a final decision. (A Special Panel is convened when needed and is composed 

of a Chairman appointed by the President, one member of the Board, and one EEOC 

commissioner.)

Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, personnel actions that are not normally appealable 

to the Board may result in an appeal under certain circumstances. Included are actions that may 

be the subject of a prohibited personnel practice complaint to the Special Counsel, such as 

appointments, promotions, details, transfers, reassignments, and decisions concerning pay, 

benefits, awards, education, or training. Such an action may be appealed to the Board only if the 

appellant alleges that the action was taken because of whistleblowing and the appellant first filed 

a complaint with the Special Counsel and the Special Counsel did not seek corrective action from 

the Board.

Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the 

Board has jurisdiction over complaints alleging a violation of Chapter 43 of Title 38, United 

States Code, relating to the employment and reemployment rights and benefits of persons 

covered by that chapter, principally persons who have served in a uniformed service. The Act 

includes a prohibition of discrimination against an individual because of service in a uniformed 

service, or application or obligation for such service. USERRA was amended in November 1998 

to extend the Board’s jurisdiction to claims that accrued under the predecessor veterans’ 

reemployment rights statute prior to the October 1994 effective date of USERRA. The Board has

ruled that the substantive provisions of USERRA are not retroactive to such claims.

Under the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act, a preference eligible employee may file 

an appeal with the Board alleging a violation of any law or regulation relating to veterans’

preference, after first filing a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) and allowing DOL 

60 days to try to resolve the matter. In addition, a violation of veterans’ preference is a 

prohibited personnel practice, allowing the Special Counsel to petition the Board to order 

disciplinary action against an employee who commits such a violation.

The Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act (PEOAA) authorizes appeals to 

the Board by employees in the Executive Office of the President based on violations of a number 

of workplace laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 3 -

and USERRA. A mandatory period of counseling and mediation in the employing office must be 

completed before an appeal may be filed with the Board. In addition, an employee covered by 

the PEOAA who is subject to a personnel action appealable to the Board and who alleges 

discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act may either file a 

complaint with EEOC under the PEOAA procedure or file a mixed case appeal with the Board.

For the Board to have jurisdiction over an appeal, it must possess jurisdiction over both the 

action and the individual filing the appeal. The employees and others (e.g., applicants for 

employment, annuitants in retirement cases) who may appeal specific actions vary in accordance 

with the law and regulations governing the action. For some actions, classes of employees, such 

as political appointees, and employees of specific agencies are excluded.

Original Jurisdiction

Cases that arise under the Board’s original jurisdiction include:

 Corrective and disciplinary actions brought by the Special Counsel against agencies or 

Federal employees who are alleged to have committed prohibited personnel practices, or to 

have violated certain civil service laws, rules or regulations;

 Disciplinary actions brought by the Special Counsel alleging violation of the Hatch Act;

 Requests for stays of personnel actions alleged by the Special Counsel to result from 

prohibited personnel practices;

 Certain proposed actions brought by agencies against administrative law judges;

 Requests for review of regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management, or of 

implementation of OPM regulations by an agency; and

 Informal hearings in cases involving proposed performance-based removals from the Senior

Executive Service.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 4 -

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.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 5 -

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.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 6 -

Member

The third position on the Board was vacant throughout FY 2003.

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, nonrenewable 7-year terms.

Board Organization

The Board Members 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 (ORO) 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 (ALJ) 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 (OAC) 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 most other cases decided by the Board. The office conducts the Board’s petition for 

review settlement 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 (OCB) 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 on-line 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. 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 7 -

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC), 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 (OPE) carries out the Board’s statutory responsibility 

to conduct special studies of the civil service and other merit systems. Reports of these 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 (EEO) 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 (FAM) 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 cross-servicing 

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 (IRM) 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.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 8 -

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.

Performance Goals and Results

The MSPB Performance Plan for FY 2003-FY 2004 consisted of 21 performance goals 

under the 5 strategic goals of the agency’s Strategic Plan, FY 2001-FY 2006. The MSPB met or 

substantially met 18 of these goals—for a success rate of 86 percent.

Strategic Plan Goal 1, Adjudication – All but two of the eight performance goals under this 

Strategic Plan goal were met. The goals not met were Goal 1.2.2, average processing time for 

petitions for review at headquarters, and Goal 1.2.3, number of cases pending at headquarters for 

more than 300 days. The Board’s ability to meet these goals continues to be affected 

significantly by vacancies on the Board.

Strategic Plan Goal 2, Alternative Dispute Resolution – All of the three performance goals under 

this Strategic Plan goal were met. 

Strategic Plan Goal 3, Merit Systems Studies – All but one of the four performance goals under 

this Strategic Plan goal were met or substantially met. Goal 3.2.1, conducting a Merit Principles 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 9 -

Survey and analyzing and evaluating the results, was not met because of a management decision 

to defer the next survey until FY 2004.

Strategic Plan Goal 4, Management and Administration – All of the three performance goals 

under this Strategic Plan goal were met or substantially met.

Strategic Plan Goal 5, Human Resources – All of the three performance goals under this 

Strategic Plan goal were met.

In the FY 2003 Performance Report section of this report, the performance goals for FY 

2003 are those described in the MSPB FY 2003 (Revised Final) and FY 2004 (Final) 

Performance Plan submitted to the Congress on February 3, 2003. The performance goals for FY 

2004, as described in this report, reflect revisions in certain goals that the MSPB made at the 

beginning of the current fiscal year. Further revisions may be made as the agency develops its 

Revised Final Performance Plan for FY 2004, which must be completed by December 31, 2003.

Certification of Completeness and Reliability of Performance Data

FY 2003

As required by 31 U.S.C. § 3516(e), I have assessed the completeness and reliability of the performance 

data on which the Performance Report section of the PAR is based. I have determined that the data is 

complete; actual performance data for FY 2003 is reported for every performance goal in the FY 2003 

Performance Plan. I have also determined that the data is reliable; all data reported has been obtained 

from final FY 2003 statistical reports from the agency’s case management system, final FY 2003 

financial reports, and reports submitted by the agency’s program managers to the Chief of Staff. There 

are no material inadequacies in either the completeness or reliability of the data.

Susanne T. Marshall, Chairman
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 10 -

Financial Statements

Balance Sheet

The balance sheet presents as of September 30, 2003, amounts of future economic benefits 

owned or managed by the reporting entity exclusive of items subject to stewardship reporting 

(assets), amounts owed by the entity (liabilities), and amounts which comprise the difference (net 

position).

ASSET SUMMARY

(In Thousands)

Fund Balance With Treasury $ 7,198

Accounts Receivable, Net 3

General Property Plant and Equipment 6,245

Total Assets $ 13,446

LIABILITIES SUMMARY

(In Thousands)

 FY 2003 

Accounts Payable $ 336

Other 3,563

Total Liabilities $ 3,899

NET POSITION SUMMARY

(In Thousands)

 FY 2003 

Unexpended Appropriations $ 5,383

Cumulative Results of Operations 4,164

Total Net Position $ 9,547
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 11 -

Statement of Net Cost

The Statement of Net Cost is designed to show separately the components of the net cost of 

the reporting entity’s operations for the period. 

Net cost of operations is the gross cost incurred by the reporting entity less any exchange 

revenue earned from its activities. The gross cost of a program consists of the full cost of the 

outputs produced by that program plus any non-production costs that can be assigned to the 

program (non-production costs are costs linked to events other than the production of goods and 

services). 

Statement of Changes in Net Position

The Statement of Changes in Net Position reports the change in net position during the 

report period. Net position is affected by changes to Cumulative Results of Operations and 

Unexpended Appropriations. The statement format is designed to display both components of 

net position separately to enable the user to better understand the nature of changes to net 

position as a whole.

Statement of Budgetary Resources

The Statement of Budgetary Resources and related disclosures provide information about 

how budgetary resources were made available as well as their status at the end of the period.

Statement of Financing

The Statement of Financing is the bridge between the Merit Systems Protection Board’s 

budgetary and financial accounting. The Statement of Financing articulates the relationship 

between obligations derived and net cost of operations derived from proprietary accounts by 

identifying and explaining differences between these two numbers.

Certification of Completeness and Reliability of Financial Data

FY 2003

As required by OMB Bulletin 01-09, I have assessed the completeness and reliability of the financial data 

presented in this report and have determined that there are no material inadequacies in either the 

completeness or reliability of the data. Details of this assessment are contained in our Management 

Representation Letter to the auditor, Brown & Company CPAs, PLLC, dated October 24, 2003.

Susanne T. Marshall, Chairman

Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance

In accordance with the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), the Merit 

Systems Protection Board has an internal management control system, which helps provide 

assurance that funds are being used in accordance with the agency’s mission and that they are 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 12 -

achieving their intended results. This system also assures that resources are protected from 

waste, fraud and mismanagement, and that laws and regulations are followed. 

During FY 2003, the MSPB continued its agreement with the Bureau of the Public Debt 

(BPD) for that agency to process financial transactions, make administrative payments, and 

prepare various financial reports required by the Department of the Treasury and the Office of 

Management and Budget. This agreement continued into and through FY 2003. The BPD uses 

the latest financial software and uses other software for processing travel and other expenses. 

This financial review arrangement promotes the accuracy and timeliness of MSPB’s financial 

records.

Management Controls

MSPB’s management review of the system of internal accounting and administrative control 

was evaluated in accordance with the applicable Federal guidance. The objectives of the system 

are to provide reasonable assurance that:

 Obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable laws;

 Funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or 

misappropriation;

 Revenues and expenditures applicable to operations are properly recorded and accounted for 

to permit the preparation of reliable accounting, financial, and statistical reports; and

 Accountability over the assets is maintained.

The evaluation of management controls extends to every responsibility and activity 

undertaken by MSPB and is applicable to financial, administrative and operational controls. 

Furthermore, the concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of management 

controls should not exceed the projected derived benefits; and (2) the benefits consist of 

reductions in the risks of failing to achieve the stated objectives. The expected benefits and 

related costs of control procedures should be addressed using estimates and managerial 

judgment. Moreover, errors and irregularities may occur and not be detected because of inherent 

limitations in any system of internal accounting and administrative control, including those 

limitations resulting from resource constraints, restrictions and other factors. Finally, projection 

of any evaluation of the system to future periods is subject to risk that procedures may be 

inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the procedures 

may deteriorate. 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

The FMFIA of 1982 (Integrity Act) mandates that agencies establish controls that reasonably 

ensure that: (1) obligations and costs comply with applicable law; (2) assets are safeguarded 

against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; and (3) revenues and expenditures are 

properly recorded and accounted for. This Act encompasses program, operational and 

administrative areas, as well as accounting and financial management. The Act requires the 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 13 -

Chairman to provide an assurance statement on the adequacy of management controls and

conformance of financial systems with government-wide standards.

FMFIA Assurance Statement

Fiscal Year 2003

The Merit Systems Protection Board evaluated its management controls and financial systems for FY 

2003, as required by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act. On the basis of MSPB’s 

comprehensive management control program, I am pleased to certify, with reasonable assurance, that 

MSPB’s systems of accounting and internal control are in compliance with the provisions of this Act.

Susanne T. Marshall, Chairman

In November 2002, the Congress enacted the Accountability for Tax Dollars Act of 2002 

(Pub. L. 107-289), which requires annual audits of covered agencies. The Act requires the first 

audit to be performed of FY 2003 financial statements. The Chairman directed that the 

requirements of the Act be implemented on an accelerated basis. Thus, FY 2002 operations were 

audited. The results of the audit identified additional information about the Board’s management 

control program, which were not available when the initial FMFIA assurance statement was 

issued. The Board is actively pursuing remediation of identified issues. 

Trends and Issues

In the past year, the most significant trend affecting the Merit Systems Protection Board—

and the civil service generally—was the accelerated movement away from the Title 5 civil 

service system. Since the mid-1990s, several agencies within Cabinet departments have gained 

significant statutory exemptions from Title 5 requirements. However, with the enactment of 

statutory authorities for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to establish unique personnel systems for those departments, almost 1 million 

Federal employees will be taken out of the Title 5 system in the near future. When the systems in 

those departments are fully implemented, well over half the Federal workforce will no longer be 

part of the traditional civil service.

Most of the agency-specific personnel flexibilities enacted in recent years have concentrated 

on giving the particular agency exemptions from Title 5 rules governing hiring, classification, 

and pay. With the exception of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), employees in 

agencies that obtained personnel flexibilities did not lose their right to appeal major adverse 

personnel actions to the MSPB. Even in the FAA, the MSPB appeal rights that were lost when 

the FAA personnel system was established in 1996 were restored by Congress just four years 

later. Under the legislation authorizing DHS and DOD to establish personnel systems, however, 

each is free to establish an internal appeals process. The statutory authority for DHS does not 

require any participation by the Board in the appeals process, while the DOD authority includes 

only a limited appellate review role for the Board.

While both DHS and DOD are expected to use their statutory authorities to establish unique 

rules for processing appeals of adverse personnel actions, it is not certain that either will establish 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 14 -

an internal process. The laws authorizing their personnel systems leave sufficient flexibility for 

the departments to remain with MSPB and to have appeals filed by their employees adjudicated 

under the unique rules that each department develops. In the case of DOD, the law appears to 

assume that DOD will establish an internal appeals process. It permits employees challenging 

certain types of actions—removals, reductions in pay, suspensions for more than 14 days, and 

furloughs of 30 days or less—to seek review by the full Merit Systems Protection Board of a 

decision issued in the DOD appeals process. However, the Board’s review authority under the 

law is more limited than the authority it has to review initial decisions issued by MSPB 

administrative judges. The law governing the DHS personnel system does not contain a similar 

provision for appellate review by the Board. However, DHS could provide by regulation for 

appeals to MSPB under rules developed by the department or for appellate review by the Board 

of decisions issued in an internal appeals process. Given the national security mission of these 

departments, it may be necessary for the Board to establish a separate “fast track” for processing 

appeals filed by their employees.

The laws authorizing both the DHS and DOD personnel systems make certain provisions of 

Title 5 non-waivable and do not authorize waiver of provisions in any other title of the United 

States Code. Therefore, it appears that the Board would retain jurisdiction over certain types of 

appeals even if each department establishes an internal appeals process. Such appeals include 

individual right of action (IRA) appeals filed by whistleblowers who have exhausted the 

procedures of the Office of Special Counsel, Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) 

appeals filed by preference eligibles who have exhausted the procedures of the Department of 

Labor, appeals filed under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

(USERRA), and appeals of administrative decisions made by the employing agency that affect an 

employee’s rights or benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal 

Employees Retirement System.

Even though the Board would retain some jurisdiction over DOD and DHS appeals, the 

MSPB estimates that the workload of its regional offices would decline by more than 20 percent 

if both departments establish internal appeals systems. This loss of workload has obvious 

implications for staffing in the regional offices. However, if DOD or DHS provides by 

regulation for appeals to MSPB at the regional level, and the agency establishes a “fast track” for 

processing those appeals, the impact on regional office staffing would be minimized. At 

headquarters, there would be some loss of workload if DHS does not remain with MSPB, but the 

appellate review authority the Board will have for DOD appeals could actually increase the 

headquarters workload. This would be likely to occur if DOD employees petition the full Board 

for review of decisions issued in a DOD appeals system at a greater rate than they currently 

petition for review of decisions issued by MSPB judges. This is not an unlikely scenario, given 

that a petition for Board review would allow a DOD employee to obtain outside, independent 

review of a decision issued in a DOD system. If there are fewer settlements of appeals in an 

internal DOD system than MSPB judges achieve, this also could result in a greater rate of 

petitions for Board review. Should the headquarters workload increase as a result of the 

appellate review authority for DOD appeals, the Board might need to shift resources from the 

regional offices to headquarters to ensure timely processing. In short, the impact of the DOD and 

DHS personnel legislation on the MSPB’s resource needs, both human and financial, cannot be 

determined with any degree of certainty at this time.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 15 -

Where the Board’s other statutory mission—merit systems studies—is concerned, it appears 

that there will be an even greater need for studies of the operation of these new personnel 

systems to ensure that they are operating in accordance with merit system principles and free of 

prohibited personnel practices. The DHS and DOD personnel authorities, like the personnel 

flexibilities granted to other agencies in recent years, provide that the Title 5 provisions 

governing merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices may not be waived, 

modified, or otherwise affected. Therefore, as agency-specific merit systems spread in the 

Federal Government, the extent to which those systems adhere to merit principles and deter 

prohibited personnel practices will become an important standard by which the operation of those 

systems can be measured.

Most observers agree that with more than half of the employees in the Executive Branch 

working under merit systems with significant exemptions from Title 5, other agencies will soon 

seek, and perhaps obtain, the same kinds of personnel flexibilities that DOD, DHS, and others 

have already gained. The challenge for the Board is to preserve its role as chief protector of 

Federal merit systems in the 21st century civil service that is being developed. The Board will 

maintain that role, of course, only to the extent that Congress provides for it in legislation 

granting Title 5 exemptions to agencies or to the extent that those agencies elect to remain in the 

MSPB appeals system.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 16 -

FY 2003 PERFORMANCE REPORT

Budget Activity: Adjudication (Strategic Plan Goals 1 and 2) – $29.6 Million

Strategic Plan Goal 1

To consistently provide fair, timely, and efficient adjudication

of cases filed with the Board

Objective 1 – Issue high quality decisions

Performance Goals Experience

Goal 1.1.1

Maintain/reduce low percentage of cases 

decided by the Board on petition for review 

(PFR) that are reversed and/or remanded to 

MSPB judges for a new decision

FY 2003 Goal – 10 % or less

FY 2004 Goal – 10 % or less

FY 2000 Actual – 12 %

FY 2001 Actual – 12.6 %

FY 2002 Actual – 8 %

FY 2003 Actual – 11 %

This goal was met. The percentage of PFRs reversed and/or remanded to MSPB judges in FY 

2003 was 11 percent—within 10 percent of the goal. In accordance with OMB instructions for 

agency Performance Reports (OMB Circular A-11 (2003), section 230.2(c)), this goal is 

considered met because the performance goal was set at an approximate target level, and the 

deviation from that level is slight. Results for this goal can be affected by a number of factors, 

including normal year-to-year variations in cases reviewed by the Board, decisions issued by the 

Board or the Federal Circuit that change prior precedent, new Board regulations and policy 

pronouncements, vacancies on the Board, and changes in the membership of the Board. The goal 

for FY 2004 is maintained at 10 percent or less.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 17 -

Goal 1.1.2

Maintain/reduce low percentage of proposed 

decisions submitted by headquarters legal 

offices to the Board that are returned for rewrite

FY 2003 Goal – 12 % or less

FY 2004 Goal – 12 % or less

FY 2000 Actual – 9 %

FY 2001 Actual – 15 %

FY 2002 Actual – 8 %

FY 2003 Actual – 6 %

This goal was met. Although the result achieved in FY 2003 was below the low end of the recent 

range of 8 to 15 percent, results for this goal can be affected by the same factors described above 

for Goal 1.1.1. The goal for FY 2004 is maintained at 12 percent or less.

Goal 1.1.3

Maintain high percentage of Board decisions 

unchanged on review by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Court dismisses 

case or affirms Board decision)

FY 2003 Goal – 93 % or greater

FY 2004 Goal – 93 % or greater

FY 2000 Actual – 96 %

FY 2001 Actual – 96 %

FY 2002 Actual – 93 %

FY 2003 Actual – 94 %

This goal was met. The percentage of final Board decisions that remained unchanged (decision 

affirmed or case dismissed) on review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in FY 

2003 was within the historical range of 93 to 96 percent and reflects normal year-to-year 

variations. The goal for FY 2004 is maintained at 93 percent or greater.

Objective 2 – Issue timely decisions at both the regional office and Board headquarters

levels

Performance Goals Experience

Goal 1.2.1

Maintain average case processing time for 

initial decisions issued in regional offices

FY 2003 Goal – 100 days or less

FY 2004 Goal – 100 days or less

FY 2000 Actual – 89 days

FY 2001 Actual – 92 days

FY 2002 Actual – 96 days

FY 2003 Actual – 94 days

This goal was met. The average case processing time for initial decisions issued in the regional 

offices in FY 2003 is consistent with the results in recent years. The goal for FY 2004 assumes 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 18 -

that results can be maintained at 100 days or less, assuming relative stability in case receipts and 

regional office staffing.

Goal 1.2.2

Maintain/reduce average case processing time 

for decisions on PFRs issued by the Board

FY 2003 Goal – 190 days or less

FY 2004 Goal – See narrative below *

FY 2000 Actual – 176 days

FY 2001 Actual – 214 days

FY 2002 Actual – 205 days

FY 2003 Actual – 295 days

This goal was not met. The Board’s ability to meet this goal continues to be affected 

significantly by vacancies on the Board. When the Board has a full complement of three 

members, cases at headquarters are closed by a unanimous vote or a majority vote of the Board. 

When the Board has only two members, there is a quorum, but no majority is possible unless 

both members agree. If the two members cannot agree, the Board’s regulations permit the 

issuance of a “split-vote” order, which makes an initial decision under review final but not 

precedential. When the Board has only one member, as it did for almost two months during FY 

2003, no decisions can be issued. Currently, one member of the Board is serving under a recess 

appointment received in April 2003; his nomination is awaiting confirmation by the Senate. The 

term of the current Chairman ends on March 1, 2004. There is one vacancy on the Board for 

which no nominee has been submitted to the Senate for confirmation; this position has been 

vacant since December 2001. Achievement of this goal, therefore, depends to a great extent on 

Board vacancies being filled in a timely manner.

* In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been revised to use average 

age of pending PFRs, rather than average case processing time for PFRs, as the performance 

measure. The intent is to promote the processing of PFRs at headquarters on a first in/first-out 

basis and to provide a greater incentive for the Board and the headquarters legal offices to close 

overage cases. The goal for FY 2004 is an average age of pending PFRs at year-end of 175 days 

or less.

Goal 1.2.3

Reduce number of cases pending at 

headquarters for more than 300 days

FY 2003 Goal – 46 cases or fewer

FY 2004 Goal – 46 cases or fewer

FY 2000 Actual – 53 cases pending more 

than 300 days at year-end

FY 2001 Actual – 45 cases pending more 

than 300 days at year-end

FY 2002 Actual – 61 cases pending more 

than 300 days at year-end

FY 2003 Actual – 73 cases pending more 

than 300 days at year-end

This goal was not met. As with Goal 1.2.2, the Board’s ability to meet this goal continues to be 

affected significantly by vacancies on the Board. During the first five months of FY 2003, the 

Board had two members and could issue decisions (other than “split-vote” orders) only when 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 19 -

both agreed. Then, for almost two months, the Board could not issue decisions at all because it

had only one member. As a result, the inventory of cases pending for more than 300 days 

increased significantly, reaching a high of 350 cases at the end of May. Thanks to an 

extraordinary effort by the Board members and their staffs, the inventory of cases pending for 

more than 300 days was reduced to 73 cases by the end of the fiscal year. While it appears likely 

that Board vacancies will continue to affect achievement of this goal in FY 2004, the previously 

established target for FY 2004 is maintained to provide continued encouragement to the Board 

members and the headquarters legal offices to reduce the number of pending overage cases.

Objective 3 – Hold increase in overall average case processing cost to no more than the 

percentage increase in operating costs, adjusted for the changes in the number of decisions 

issued

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been renumbered Objective 

4.

Goal 1.3.1

Hold increase in overall average case processing 

cost to no more than the percentage increase in 

operating costs, adjusted for the changes in the 

number of decisions issued

FY 2003 Goal – $2,821 plus percentage 

increase in operating costs, adjusted for the 

changes in the number of decisions issued

FY 2004 Goal – $2,731 plus percentage 

increase in operating costs, adjusted for the 

changes in the number of decisions issued

FY 2000 Actual – $2,876 (Adjusted)

FY 2001 Actual – $2,820 (Adjusted)

FY 2002 Actual – $2,821 (Adjusted)

FY 2003 Actual – $2,731 (Adjusted)

This goal was met. The average case processing cost in FY 2003—adjusted for year-to-year 

variations in the number of cases processed and to amortize the cost of the electronic case 

processing system—was about 3 percent less than in FY 2002. As in past years, the success of 

the Board’s settlement programs was a significant factor in containing case processing costs. 

The goal established for FY 2004 calls for continuing to hold the increase in the average case 

processing cost to no more than the percentage increase in the operating costs that most affect 

case processing—salaries and benefits, travel expenses, and the cost of court reporting services—

adjusted for year-to-year variations in the number of cases processed and to amortize the cost of 

the electronic case processing system.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 1.4.1.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 20 -

Objective 4 – Obtain customer input regarding the adjudicatory process

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been renumbered Objective 

6.

Goal 1.4.1

Continue to evaluate and implement, as 

appropriate, suggestions received from customer 

surveys regarding the adjudicatory process

FY 2003 Goal – Seek feedback from persons 

appearing before the Board and provide that 

feedback to ORO for use in improving 

adjudicatory processes and developing best 

practices (Regional and Field Office staff)

FY 2004 Goal – Conduct customer survey of 

agency representatives in appeals to MSPB to 

determine their views regarding the adjudicatory 

process; evaluate results; implement suggestions 

as appropriate

FY 2000 Actual – Conducted survey on 

experience of parties and MSPB judges with 

bench decisions and video hearings

FY 2001 Actual – Evaluated and published 

results of survey on experience of parties and 

MSPB judges with bench decisions and video 

hearings; bench decisions and video hearings 

incorporated into MSPB adjudicatory 

procedures

FY 2002 Actual – Conducted survey of 

customers of new video explaining MSPB 

appeals process; report on findings prepared 

by OPE and reviewed by ORO

FY 2003 Actual – ORO and regional/field 

office staff received feedback on “customer 

satisfaction” at outreach events and through 

participation in such organizations as Federal

Executive Boards, Small Agency Council, and 

bar organizations; feedback was discussed in 

bi-weekly teleconferences between ORO 

Director and Regional Directors; practitioners 

made presentations and responded to 

questions at legal conference; “best practices” 

session held at legal conference; ORO 

continued developing “best practices” 

guidance

This goal was met. In addition to seeking and obtaining customer feedback at outreach events, at 

the MSPB Legal Conference, and through participation in various organizations, ORO continued 

its work on development of “best practices” guidance for the regional offices. This work 

included a survey of selected administrative judges. As a result of the survey, ORO is 

considering asking each regional office to submit its own “best practices” for dissemination and 

discussion before any final guidance is established. ORO also submitted a proposal for a 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 21 -

settlement judge program as a “best practice” to the Chairman, but no decision had been made by 

the end of the fiscal year.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 1.6.1 and 

revised to include informal feedback in addition to customer surveys. The FY 2004 goal has 

been revised to reflect specific plans for conducting a survey of agency representatives in that 

year.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 22 -

Strategic Plan Goal 2 

To make effective use of alternative methods of dispute resolution

in Board proceedings

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this strategic goal has been combined with 

Strategic Plan Goal 1.

Objective 1 – Continue the successful use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

procedures in MSPB proceedings at both the regional office and Board headquarters levels

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been moved to Strategic 

Plan Goal 1, where it is Objective 3.

Goal 2.1.1

Maintain rate of settlement of appeals that are 

not dismissed at 50 % or higher

FY 2003 Goal – 50 % or higher

FY 2004 Goal – 50 % or higher

FY 2000 Actual – 55 %

FY 2001 Actual – 57 %

FY 2002 Actual – 54 %

FY 2003 Actual – 54 %

This goal was met. The settlement rate for appeals that were not dismissed in FY 2003 falls 

within the expected range. The goal for FY 2004 is maintained at 50 percent or higher.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 1.3.1

Goal 2.1.2

Maintain rate of settlement of cases selected for 

the PFR Settlement Program at 25% or higher

FY 2003 Goal – 25 % or higher

FY 2004 Goal – 25 % or higher

FY 2000 Actual – 24 %

FY 2001 Actual – 27 %

FY 2002 Actual – 26 %

FY 2003 Actual – 44 %

This goal was met. The settlement rate for petitions for review (PFRs) selected for the PFR 

Settlement Program at headquarters in FY 2003 was higher than in prior years. Although OAC 

received a substantial increase in the number of requests for settlement assistance in FY 2003, 

most were in PFR cases that were deemed inappropriate for settlement and, therefore, were not 

selected for the PFR Settlement Program. As a result of OAC’s greater selectivity in screening 

PFRs to identify those with significant settlement potential, fewer cases were selected for the 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 23 -

program. Given the experience of prior years, it is uncertain whether this higher settlement rate 

can be maintained. Therefore, the goal for FY 2004 is maintained at 25 percent or higher.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 1.3.2.

Goal 2.1.3

Implement pilot program to test use of 

transformative mediation in resolving appeals

FY 2003 Goal – Conduct additional training for 

mediators; conduct training for MSPB staff in 

the regional offices that will serve as pilot sites; 

conduct outreach to potential participants in the 

mediation process; accept cases for mediation; 

evaluate results achieved by pilot program

FY 2004 Goal – Based on evaluation of results 

of the MAP pilot, determine whether the 

program should be continued, modified, or 

terminated

FY 2000 Actual – Not applicable (new goal 

in FY 2001)

FY 2001 Actual – Conducted mediation 

training at MSPB Legal Conference; 

established ADR Working Group, which met 

with ADR experts, prepared statement of 

work for mediation training and development 

of an ADR program, and selected contractor

FY 2002 Actual – Worked with contractor to 

develop Mediation Appeals Project (MAP); 

announced MAP to all MSPB employees and 

solicited applications to be a mediator; 

selected mediators and conducted training; 

promoted MAP through outreach activities; 

established MAP marketing program; first 

two co-mediations completed by MAP-trained 

mediators working with contractor

FY 2003 Actual – Completed MAP training 

of 15 mediators; each mediator completed 3 

to 5 co-mediations with contractor; 50 percent 

of completed co-mediations resulted in 

settlement of the appeal; plenary session on 

MAP held at legal conference to report results 

of MAP training and co-mediations 

completed; responsibility for continued 

implementation of MAP transferred to 

Regional Directors of Atlanta RO and Central 

RO; initial evaluation of MAP completed

This goal was met. The Mediation Appeals Project (MAP) was developed and launched in FY 

2002. Under 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. The 

MAP is a supplement to, not a replacement for, the Board’s existing settlement programs.

All of the activities planned for MAP in FY 2003 were completed, including an evaluation by 

OPE of MAP results during its first year of operation. Late in the fiscal year, responsibility for 

continued implementation of the MAP was transferred from headquarters to the Regional 

Directors of the Atlanta and Central regional offices. During the next phase of MAP, the trained 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 24 -

mediators are to conduct individual mediations in appeals referred from the Atlanta, Central, 

Northeastern, and Washington regional offices. At the end of the fiscal year, the new managers 

were establishing procedures and refining the MAP process to ensure that, at the conclusion of 

the pilot period, the Board can evaluate the results and decide whether to continue the MAP 

program or any other form of mediation.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 1.3.3 and 

the FY 2004 goal has been revised.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 25 -

Budget Activity: Merit Systems Studies (Strategic Plan Goal 3) – $1.4 Million

Strategic Plan Goal 3

To provide information, analyses, and recommendations on Federal personnel programs, 

policies, and initiatives to policymakers, Federal agencies and employees, and others 

with an interest in Federal human resources management

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this strategic goal has been renumbered 

Strategic Plan Goal 2 and has been revised.

Objective 1 – Conduct governmentwide merit systems studies that provide information on, 

and analyses of, the state of Federal merit systems and the Federal workforce to 

policymakers, Federal agencies and employees, and others with an interest in Federal 

human resources management; raise the level of consciousness and initiate or participate in 

the debate about implementing and maintaining effective human resources management 

programs, policies, and practices that adhere to the merit system principles

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been revised.

Goal 3.1.1

Conduct studies of human resources 

management matters in the Federal Government 

and issue reports of findings and 

recommendations for action, where appropriate

FY 2003 Goal – See next page

FY 2004 Goal – See next page

FY 2000 Actual – Conducted ongoing 

program of merit systems studies, including 

issuance of 2 major reports and 5 editions of 

newsletter; responded to about 250 individual 

and institutional requests for data runs, 

advisory assistance and other studies-related 

information

FY 2001 Actual – See next page

FY 2002 Actual – See next page

FY 2003 Actual – See next page
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 26 -

Goal 3.1.1 (continued)

FY 2003 Goal – Develop long-term research 

agenda for in-depth studies, focusing on broad 

HRM issues; publish at least 6 major reports 

and a quarterly newsletter; conduct less 

intensive studies on current topics of particular 

interest to the President and Congress; improve 

access to CPDF; explore use of electronic 

surveys; formalize collaborative relationships 

with other research organizations

FY 2004 Goal – Review long-term research 

agenda and adjust, as necessary; publish at least 

6 reports and a quarterly newsletter; conduct 

less intensive studies on current topics of 

particular interest to the President and Congress; 

continue to formalize collaborative relationships 

with other research organizations

FY 2001 Actual – Conducted ongoing 

program of merit systems studies, including 

issuance of 1 major study report and 4 

editions of newsletter (3 additional major 

study reports were completed and submitted 

to the Board for approval); responded to about 

250 individual and institutional requests for 

data runs, advisory assistance and other 

studies-related information

FY 2002 Actual – Conducted ongoing 

program of merit systems studies, including 

issuance of 4 major study reports and 4 

editions of newsletter; responded to about 250 

individual and institutional requests for data 

runs, advisory assistance and other studiesrelated information

FY 2003 Actual – Conducted ongoing 

program of merit systems studies, including 

issuance of 3 major study reports and 3 

editions of newsletter; developed 

comprehensive research agenda after 

soliciting, receiving and evaluating 

stakeholder and internal suggestions; 

conducted less intensive studies on various 

topics and presented preliminary results, 

including presentations to Department of 

Homeland Security personnel system design 

team; established regular transmissions from 

OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), 

trained staff in use of data, and used data to 

support newsletter articles and research; met 

with OPM staff regarding lessons learned 

from OPM experience with electronic 

surveys, and finalized contract for MSPB to 

conduct a web-based survey; strengthened 

collaboration with other research 

organizations, including agreement to share 

draft work before finalization and to meet 

quarterly to share updates on research in 

progress
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 27 -

This goal was substantially met. The MSPB issued two reports on merit systems studies and 

three editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter during the fiscal year, and a third approved report 

was pending for printing at year-end. (See “Summaries of Merit Systems Studies Issued in FY 

2003” for a discussion of these reports and various study topics covered in the newsletter.) 

While the number of reports and newsletters issued during the fiscal year fell short of the target 

for this component of the goal, all remaining components of the goal were met. A long-term 

research agenda was developed after considering stakeholder input from various focus groups, 

information obtained in meetings with human resources directors, and over 2,000 comments 

obtained from a survey on the MSPB website. Presentations on various human resources matters 

were made to the design team charged with developing a new personnel system for the 

Department of Homeland Security. Technical improvements affecting how the MSPB conducts 

its studies were achieved through the establishment of regular transmissions of data from the 

CPDF and the finalization of a contract to conduct a web-based survey. Formalized 

collaboration with other research organizations, such as OPM, GAO, NAPA and the Partnership 

for Public Service, allowed the MSPB to comment on and influence reports issued by those 

organizations.

The FY 2003 target for the number of reports on merit systems studies and editions of the 

newsletter to be issued was predicated on the expectation that vacant positions in OPE would be 

filled early in the fiscal year. In fact, the positions were not filled until the final quarter of the 

fiscal year, and OPE lost two staff members prior to that time. With OPE staffing stabilized, the

MSPB expects that the goal for the number of reports and editions of the newsletter to be issued 

in FY 2004 can be met.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 2.1.2.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 28 -

Goal 3.1.2

Ensure that reports of studies are made widely 

available, particularly to target audiences, and 

disseminate findings through such means as 

personal appearances, personal contacts, 

publication of articles by OPE staff, and 

collaboration with other research organizations 

to increase impact of studies

FY 2003 Goal – Target management groups 

and other audiences for outreach presentations 

on studies; ensure that appropriate association 

membership lists are included in mailing list for 

studies; expand exposure through FEBs in 

collaboration with MSPB regional and field 

offices; improve website presence of studies, 

expand website links to research partners, and 

provide self-service updates to mailing list

FY 2004 Goal – Target management groups 

and other audiences for outreach presentations 

on studies; ensure that appropriate association 

membership lists are included in mailing list for 

studies; expand exposure through FEBs in 

collaboration with MSPB regional and field 

offices; improve website presence of studies, 

expand website links to research partners, and 

provide self-service updates to mailing list

FY 2000 Actual – Approximately 12,000 

copies of reports and newsletters distributed; 

estimated 35,000 downloads from the MSPB 

website and other websites; over 30 formal 

presentations made to groups; 3 articles by 

OPE staff published in professional journals; 

ongoing contacts similar to FY 1999

FY 2001 Actual – More than 55,000 copies 

of reports and newsletters distributed in 

printed form and downloaded from the MSPB 

website and other websites; over 30 formal 

presentations made to groups; more than 500 

discussions with individuals

FY 2002 Actual – Over 100,000 copies of 

reports and newsletters distributed in printed 

form and downloaded from the MSPB 

website and other websites; more than 500 

subscribers to Studies listserve since its 

implementation early in FY 2002; 23 formal 

presentations made to groups, including 

meetings held with Federal Executive Boards 

(FEBs) in Chicago, Denver, and San Antonio; 

approximately 350 discussions with 

individuals

FY 2003 Actual – Continued outreach 

targeted to Federal Executive Boards and 

associations of managers with presentations in 

seven cities; made approximately 30 formal 

presentations to groups representing a wide 

range of stakeholders and participated in 

several national conferences; substantially 

updated mailing lists for distribution of 

reports and newsletters; in collaboration with 

OCB, redesigned Studies page on MSPB 

website; succeeded in effort to get 

organizations and news services to include 

links to MSPB website on their websites; 

promoted self-service LISTSERV to 

customers
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 29 -

This goal was met. The goal focuses on specific efforts to target outreach activities on studies to 

key audiences, such as the Senior Executives Association, the Federal Managers Association, 

Federal Executive Boards, and others. In FY 2003, outreach to Federal Executive Board 

audiences included presentations in Portland (OR), Oklahoma City, Chicago, Boston, 

Philadelphia, Miami, and Minneapolis. Participation in national conferences included major 

program responsibility for the International Personnel Management Association Federal Section 

conference. The goal also supports expanded efforts to use the MSPB website to increase the 

exposure of the Board’s studies, as well as to make other website enhancements such as 

expanded links to research partners and self-service updates to the studies mailing list.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 2.1.4.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 30 -

Goal 3.1.3

Evaluate impact of studies, newsletters, and 

other products through feedback from customer 

surveys, tracking use of recommendations or 

references in studies, policy papers, professional 

literature and the media

FY 2003 Goal – Recommendations in studies 

are used and opinion makers cite them in 

studies, policy papers, professional literature, 

and the media

FY 2004 Goal – Devise alternative means to 

measure outcomes and impact of studies; 

conduct formal survey that repeats key 

questions of earlier customer surveys; 

recommendations in studies are used and 

opinion makers cite them in studies, policy 

papers, professional literature, and the media

FY 2000 Actual – Informal survey results and 

volunteered feedback remained positive; 

MSPB studies continued to have large and 

positive impact, as measured by references in 

professional literature, media and respected 

research organizations

FY 2001 Actual – Submitted request for 

blanket authority to conduct customer surveys 

to OMB and received approval; submitted 

survey instrument to OMB for review; list of 

citations and references to MSPB studies and 

recommendations by Congress, GAO, NAPA, 

the professional literature, the media, and 

other credible sources was developed, 

indicating the MSPB studies continue to have 

large and positive impact

FY 2002 Actual – Conducted customer 

survey, compiled returns, completed report; 

customer satisfaction survey results and 

collection of citations indicate substantial 

positive impact; sent selected studies from 

earlier studies to Volcker Commission on 

civil service reform

FY 2003 Actual – Received favorable 

reviews from agencies, universities, and other 

organizations on reports issued in FY 2003; 

numerous references to reports made in the 

media; OPE staff invited to make 

presentations on reports; advance information 

about report on vacancy announcements used 

in testimony before Congress by contractor 

hired by OPM to improve central vacancy 

announcement process and USAJobs website; 

QuickHire requested permission to reprint 

report on vacancy announcements at their 

expense; MSPB reports contributed to 

enactment of legislation allowing agencies to 

use category rating instead of “rule of three”
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 31 -

This goal was met. Among the numerous favorable reviews of MSPB reports of merit systems 

studies issued during the fiscal year was a congratulatory letter from the OPM Director regarding 

the report on use of structured interviews. The report on vacancy announcements was 

highlighted in testimony before Congress by the contractor hired by OPM to improve the central 

vacancy announcement process and the USAJobs website, and QuickHire, a private company 

working with various Federal agencies on staffing issues, requested permission to reprint 5,000 

copies of the report at their expense. In addition, the OPE Director and members of the OPE 

staff were invited to discuss the reports on a radio program.

The Board’s work over the years on studies of human resources management issues resulted in 

OPE staff being invited to make presentations to the design team developing a new personnel 

system for the Department of Homeland Security. The Board’s work also influenced the 

enactment of legislation (as part of the Homeland Security Act) that allows agencies to use 

category rating rather than the “rule of three” when considering applications for employment.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 2.1.1 and 

the FY 2004 goal has been revised.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 32 -

Objective 2 – Determine through merit systems studies the extent to which Executive 

Branch departments and agencies operate in a manner consistent with the statutory merit 

system principles and the extent to which prohibited personnel practices occur in the 

Federal workplace

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been revised.

Goal 3.2.1

Conduct a triennial Merit Principles Survey, 

including questions intended to determine 

whether agencies adhere to the merit system 

principles and the extent to which prohibited 

personnel practices occur in the workplace, and 

report findings

FY 2003 Goal – Conduct 2003 Merit Principles 

Survey and analyze and evaluate results

FY 2004 Goal – Conduct electronic 2004 Merit 

Principles Survey; analyze and evaluate results; 

issue report as one of the reports under Goal 

2.1.2 (formerly Goal 3.1.1)

FY 2000 Actual – 2000 Merit Principles 

Survey conducted; analyzing and evaluating 

results begun

FY 2001 Actual – Completed analyzing and 

evaluating results of the 2000 Merit Principles 

Survey; released findings through the Issues 

of Merit newsletter and OPE staff 

presentations and discussions

FY 2002 Actual – Prepared report on 2000 

Merit Principles Survey

FY 2003 Actual – Began work on next Merit 

Principles Survey, including developing 

questions and planning for conducting survey 

electronically using web-based technology; 

met with OPM staff regarding lessons learned 

from OPM experience with electronic 

surveys, and finalized contract for MSPB to 

conduct a web-based survey; postponed 

conducting survey, and analyzing and 

evaluating results, until FY 2004

This goal was not met. The Merit Principles Survey that was to be conducted in FY 2003 has 

been rescheduled for FY 2004 so that the survey can be used to establish a baseline for the 

evaluation of new personnel systems. Under authority granted by the Homeland Security Act, 

the Department of Homeland Security is currently developing a new personnel system for its 

employees. Similar authority has been granted to the Department of Defense with respect to its 

civilian employees. New personnel systems in these two departments alone would affect almost 

1 million civil service employees. Accordingly, the MSPB decided during FY 2003 that it would 

be prudent to postpone its next Merit Principles Survey until 2004. The postponement also 

allows additional time for planning for the web-based administration of the survey.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 33 -

Although not part of the FY 2003 goal, the final report on the Board’s 2000 Merit Principles 

Survey was completed, approved, and was pending for printing at the end of the fiscal year.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 2.2.1 and 

revised to substitute “periodic” for “triennial,” and the FY 2004 goal has been revised.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 34 -

Budget Activity: Management Support (Strategic Plan Goals 4 and 5) – $3.2 Million

Strategic Plan Goal 4

To strengthen the MSPB’s internal systems and processes to support a continually 

improving, highly effective and efficient organization with the flexibility

to meet program needs

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, the former strategic goals numbered 4 and 5 

have been combined, revised, and renumbered Strategic Plan Goal 3.

Objective 1 – Develop and implement an integrated electronic case processing system that 

allows appellants and agencies to file and receive documents electronically and streamlines 

internal case processing

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been moved to Strategic 

Plan Goal 1, where it is Objective 5.

Goal 4.1.1

Develop integrated electronic case processing 

system that offers electronic access to customers 

as required by the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (GPEA) and streamlines 

internal case processing in accordance with 

MSPB’s long-term Strategic IT Plan

FY 2003 Goal – See next page

FY 2004 Goal – See next page

FY 2000 Actual – Document management 

system (Docs Open) and document assembly 

system (Hot Docs) implemented; preliminary 

design of case management system (Law 

Manager) begun

FY 2001 Actual – Case management system 

design finalized to include interfaces with 

Docs Open, Hot Docs, and Lotus Notes; fill-in

versions of Appeal Form and PFR Form 

developed and placed on website; work on 

revising Appeal Form to provide basis for 

electronic filing application begun; Action 

Plan for implementation of electronic filing 

developed and distributed internally; meeting 

with potential contractors to develop 

electronic filing application begun

FY 2002 Actual – See next page

FY 2003 Actual – See next page
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 35 -

Goal 4.1.1 (continued)

FY 2003 Goal – Implement the following 

components of the electronic case processing 

system: (1) Law Manager - new case 

management system that integrates case tracking

with document management, document 

assembly, and electronic calendar; and (2) eAppeal – web-based application that appellants 

may use to file an appeal

FY 2004 Goal – Continue implementation of 

electronic case processing system by: (1) 

implementing Law Manager as the new case 

management system and making enhancements 

based on user experiences; (2) enhancing eAppeal to include additional filings by parties 

and electronic publishing of MSPB orders and 

decisions through electronic distribution directly 

to the parties

FY 2002 Actual – Continued work with 

contractor on development of case 

management system, including testing of 

partial implementations and data conversions; 

completed revisions to Appeal Form, 

distributed internally for comment, evaluated 

comments, revised form to create Appeal 

Forms Package that will serve as basis for 

electronic filing application, and published for 

public comments in accordance with the PRA; 

wrote Statement of Work (SOW) and 

Functional Requirements Document (FRD) 

for development of electronic filing 

application (e-Appeal)

FY 2003 Actual – Met with Law Manager 

contractor and FEDSIM (GSA) official 

responsible for contract to discuss contractor’s

failure to meet contract deadline for 

completion of Law Manager; signed new firm 

fixed-price contract for completion of Law 

Manager in FY 2003; signed contract for 

development of e-Appeal; worked with 

contractor to develop e-Appeal; conducted 

internal “beta” testing of e-Appeal; submitted 

e-Appeal and revised paper Appeal Form to 

OMB for PRA approval; published notice in 

Federal Register announcing PRA submission

to OMB; launched e-Appeal and published 

electronic filing regulations in Federal 

Register on October 20, 2003, to meet 

statutory deadline for GPEA compliance 

(October 21, 2003)

This goal was substantially met. Virtually all work on e-Appeal and the electronic filing 

regulations was completed during FY 2003, awaiting only OMB approval of the PRA submission 

and finalization of the regulations for publication at year-end. The e-Appeal application, which 

permits appellants or their representatives to file appeals electronically, was launched and revised

regulations authorizing electronic filing and receipt of documents in MSPB adjudicatory 

proceedings were published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2003. Together, e-Appeal 

and the electronic filing regulations enabled the Board to comply with GPEA by the statutory 

deadline of October 21, 2003.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 36 -

The Law Manager application was not implemented during FY 2003 because the contractor was 

unable to complete the contract on schedule. Under the new firm fixed-price contract signed in 

March 2003, the contractor was to deliver Law Manager by September 2003, and implementation 

was expected early in FY 2004. However, the contractor has continued to underestimate the 

complexity of the existing case management system, all the functions of which are to be included 

in the new system. The most recent delay by the contractor pushes implementation of Law 

Manager well into FY 2004, with training in the new system now anticipated for January 2004 

and implementation in February 2004.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 1.5.1 and 

the FY 2004 goal has been revised.

Objective 2 – Improve electronic access via the Internet and other available resources to 

MSPB case-related decisions, procedures and guidance 

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been renumbered Objective 

4 under Strategic Plan Goal 3 and has been revised.

Goal 4.2.1

Make final Board decisions, reports and other 

publications, the MSPB Appeal Form and other 

forms, Board regulations, the OPE newsletter, 

and other information available on the MSPB 

website; provide information to customers in 

electronic form when requested

FY 2003 Goal – See next page

FY 2005 Goal – See next page

FY 2000 Actual – Redesigned MSPB website 

launched; continued to provide all 

information as before, but new search tool for 

Board decisions included, and link to GPO 

Access files of Board regulations replaced by 

MSPB files that are continuously updated as 

regulations are revised; information provided 

to customers in electronic form when 

requested

FY 2001 Actual – Began adding key 

precedential Board decisions issued from 

inception of MSPB (1979) to 1994 to the 

decisions database on the MSPB website; 

testing of listservs for decisions and studies 

completed and implementation begun; fill-in 

versions of Appeal Form and PFR Form 

developed and placed on website; conversion 

to electronic distribution of decisions to 

publishers completed; information provided to

customers in electronic form when requested

FY 2002 Actual – See next page

FY 2003 Actual – See next page
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 37 -

Goal 4.2.1 (continued)

FY 2003 Goal – Complete adding all pre-1994 

Board decisions to decisions database on 

website; redesign website to improve access to 

information; continue to provide information to 

customers in electronic form when requested

FY 2004 Goal – Continue to provide 

information on the MSPB website and add new 

information in response to customer needs; 

continue to provide information to customers in 

electronic form when requested; identify and 

review selected governmentwide e-Government 

initiatives and determine whether they would be 

beneficial to MSPB operations; determine steps 

necessary to comply with E-Government Act of 

2002 and develop implementation plan

FY 2002 Actual – Completed adding key 

precedential Board decisions issued from 

inception of MSPB (1979) to 1994 to the 

decisions database on the MSPB website; 

began adding all pre-1994 decisions to 

website database; listservs for decisions and 

studies implemented; information provided to 

customers in electronic form when requested

FY 2003 Actual – Completed and 

implemented redesigned MSPB website; all 

decisions issued by Board at headquarters are 

being distributed electronically to publishers; 

issued RFP for contract to complete project of 

adding all pre-1994 Board decisions to MSPB 

website, but bids received did not produce an 

affordable solution; determined that with use 

of MSPB staff only, adding additional pre1994 decisions to website will have to 

continue over the next 2 years, as staffing 

allows

This goal was substantially met. The website redesign was completed early in the fiscal year, all 

decisions issued by the Board at headquarters are being distributed electronically to publishers, 

and information is routinely distributed in electronic form when requested. Completion of the 

task of adding all pre-1994 Board decisions to the MSPB website has been deferred.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 3.4.1 and 

expanded to focus on the Administration’s governmentwide e-Government initiatives and 

compliance with the E-Government Act of 2002. The FY 2004 goal has been revised 

accordingly.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 38 -

Objective 3 – Identify, test, and implement, as appropriate, new technologies that will

increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve customer service 

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective has been renumbered Objective 

5 under Strategic Plan Goal 3 and has been revised.

Goal 4.3.1

Make improvements in information technology 

security program and comply with requirements 

of the Federal Information Security 

Management Act of 2002

FY 2003 Goal – Provide security awareness 

training to all staff; revise security plans for 

implementation of new case management 

system and electronic filing application; 

continue to enhance security and contingency 

planning

FY 2004 Goal – Provide security awareness 

training to all staff; revise security plans as 

needed, based on experience with electronic 

filing application, for implementation of 

enhancements to application and 

implementation of electronic publishing; 

continue to enhance contingency planning as 

funds permit

FY 2000 Actual – Not applicable (new goal 

in FY 2002)

FY 2001 Actual – Not applicable (new goal 

in FY 2002)

FY 2002 Actual – Conducted security 

awareness training for all employees; sent one 

IRM employee to security training; completed 

Security Plan; updated Risk Analysis; 

completed Contingency Plan for major 

systems

FY 2003 Actual – Completed all information 

security initiatives in accordance with FY 

2003 Plan of Action & Milestones 

(POA&Ms) submitted to OMB—except for 

background investigations being conducted by 

OPM and cancellation of one item; contracted 

independent auditor to conduct information 

security review and complete IG portion of 

2003 FISMA Report; filed FISMA Report 

with OMB and Congress; provided security 

awareness training to all staff

This goal was met. In accordance with the agency’s FY 2003 POA&Ms, IRM: (1) updated the 

IT Security Program Manual; (2) improved physical access controls to the computer room, 

computer lab, and IT storage room; (3) improved control over Lotus Notes and remote user IDs 

and passwords; (4) upgraded three servers; (5) prepared and tested backup/recovery procedures 

for all major systems; (6) implemented Rules of Behavior for use of IT resources; (7) selected 

and ordered an intrusion detection system; (8) continued work on documentation of procedures; 

(9) initiated OPM background investigations of IT staff; (10) updated the Security Plan and 

certified and accredited the e-Appeal application for operation; (11) purchased security 

hardware/software (to be implemented in FY 2004) for internal network monitoring and 

improved daily backup; and (12) upgraded the firewall.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 3.5.1.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 39 -

Strategic Plan Goal 5

To develop the MSPB’s human resources to ensure a continually improving, highly 

effective and efficient organization with the flexibility to meet program needs

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, the former strategic goals numbered 4 and 5 

have been combined, revised, and renumbered Strategic Plan Goal 3.

Objective 1 – Recruit, train, and retain skilled, highly motivated employees to effectively 

and efficiently accomplish the MSPB mission

Performance Goals Experience

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this objective, revised, is Objective 1 under 

Strategic Plan Goal 3.

Goal 5.1.1

Strengthen employee and management 

development programs and increase 

opportunities for MSPB employees

FY 2003 Goal – See next page

FY 2004 Goal – See next page

FY 2000 Actual – 6 employees sent to 

OPM’s Management Development Centers; 

OAC attorneys detailed to Vice 

Chairman/Acting Chairman on rotating basis, 

which gave each employee a broader 

understanding of the various MSPB 

organizations and how they interact; OAC 

attorneys detailed on rotating basis to OCB 

for Expedited PFR Pilot Program

FY 2001 Actual – 6 employees sent to 

OPM’s Management Development Centers 

and 4 employees sent to Federal Executive 

Institute (FEI); 1 OAC attorney detailed to 

Dallas field office for 2 months; 1 regional 

office attorney detailed to ORO for 6 months; 

OAC and OGC attorneys detailed to 

Chairman and Vice Chairman; OAC attorneys 

detailed on rotating basis to OCB for 

Expedited PFR Pilot Program

FY 2002 Actual – See next page

FY 2003 Actual – See next page
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 40 -

Goal 5.1.1 (continued)

FY 2003 Goal – Develop core and advanced 

training and development programs for key 

MSPB occupations; provide training for 

employees in accordance with Individual 

Development Plans (IDPs); provide 

developmental details between offices; provide 

management training

FY 2004 Goal – Continue activities from FY 

2003; develop mentoring programs for new 

employees in key MSPB occupations

FY 2002 Actual – 5 employees sent to 

OPM’s Management Development Centers 

and 2 employees sent to Federal Executive 

Institute (FEI); details to Board members and 

ORO continued; OAC attorney detailed to 

OCB for Expedited PFR Pilot Program until 

3/1/02 when responsibility for program was 

reassigned to OAC

FY 2003 Actual – Core and advanced 

curriculums were developed for paralegals, 

and progress was made on developing 

programs for managers; OPE collaborated 

with NAPA on study to identify core 

managerial training needs of supervisors and 

managers; session for paralegals held at legal 

conference, and work continues on planning 

another session to be held at the National 

Advocacy Center; provided additional training

and detail opportunities (see narrative below); 

Individual Development Plans (IDPs) updated 

to reflect current training needs

This goal was met. During the fiscal year, 1 employee was sent to the Federal Executive 

Institute, 2 employees took courses at OPM’s Management Development Centers, 6 attended 

American Academy of Judicial Education courses, and 14 took courses at the National Judicial 

College. At headquarters, 6 OAC employees were on detail—1 to the Chairman, 3 to the 

Member, 1 to ORO, and 1 to OCB; the details to ORO and OCB were subsequently made 

permanent reassignments. An AJ from the Western region was detailed to serve as Acting RD of 

the Western Regional Office during the RD’s absence. One regional employee was provided a 

training opportunity to work with FAM on a headquarters project.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 3.1.1.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 41 -

Goal 5.1.2

Develop agency-wide recruitment strategies to 

ensure MSPB hires from a variety of sources to 

ensure a diverse, highly qualified workforce

FY 2003 Goal – Identify internal barriers to the 

movement of staff between MSPB offices

FY 2004 Goal – Identify sources to expand the 

candidate pool and target recruitment at those 

sources

FY 2000 Actual – Not applicable (new goal 

in FY 2003)

FY 2001 Actual – Not applicable (new goal 

in FY 2003)

FY 2002 Actual – Not applicable (new goal 

in FY 2003)

FY 2003 Actual – OPE worked with ORO to 

offer pre-announcement lateral opportunities 

to AJs, resulting in movement of AJs between 

field locations; OPE worked with ORO and 

Washington Regional Office to conduct job 

analyses of administrative judge (AJ) 

positions and developed structured interview 

for AJ positions; OPE worked with OCB to 

accommodate movement of headquarters 

staff; OPE began exploring use of automated 

systems for recruitment, including application 

and rating processes

This goal was met.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been renumbered Goal 3.3.1 and 

the FY 2004 goal has been revised.

Goal 5.1.3

Conduct a biennial legal conference for MSPB 

administrative judges and headquarters 

attorneys

FY 2003 Goal – Conduct legal conference

FY 2004 Goal – See narrative below

FY 2000 Actual – Made plans for 2001 legal 

conference

FY 2001 Actual – Legal conference held May 

21-24, 2001

FY 2002 Actual – Began planning 2003 legal 

conference

FY 2003 Actual – Legal conference held May 

5-8, 2003

This goal was met.

In the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance Plan, this goal has been discontinued. Future 

activities with respect to the MSPB legal conferences will be reported under the general goal for 

training and development programs (Goal 3.1.1 in the MSPB FY 2004-FY 2005 Performance 

Plan; formerly Goal 5.1.1).
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 42 -

FY 2003 FINANCIAL REPORT

Financial Statements for the Years Ended September 30, 2003 and 2002

BALANCE SHEET

AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002

(IN DOLLARS)

2003 2002

ASSETS:

Intragovernmental:

Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2) $ 7,197,643 $ 6,194,387 

Total Intragovernmental 7,197,643 6,194,387 

Cash (Note 1) - 59,111 

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 1) 2,827 140 

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 3) 6,245,366 4,524,411 

Other 155 -

Total Assets $ 13,445,991 $ 10,778,049 

LIABILITIES:

Intragovernmental:

Accounts Payable (Note 4) $ 4,810 $ 464 

Other (Note 4) 421,218 1,594,543 

Total Intragovernmental 426,028 1,595,007 

Accounts Payable (Note 4) 331,765 181,885 

Payroll Accrual and Other (Note 4) 1,090,839 1,045,869 

Unfunded Leave (Note 4) 2,050,032 2,043,812 

Total Liabilities 3,898,664 4,866,573 

NET POSITION: 

Unexpended Appropriations (Note 5) 5,383,556 3,430,784 

Cumulative Results of Operations (Note 5) 4,163,771 2,480,692 

Total Net Position $ 9,547,327 $ 5,911,476 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 13,445,991 $ 10,778,049 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 43 -

STATEMENT OF NET COST

FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002

(IN DOLLARS)

2003 2002

PROGRAM COSTS:

Intragovernmental Gross Costs $ 6,004,491 $ 3,653,024 

Less: Intragovernmental Earned Revenue (2,608,931) (2,528,688)

Intragovernmental Net Costs 3,395,560 1,124,336 

Gross Costs With the Public 27,075,824 29,799,591 

Less: Earned Revenues From the Public - -

Net Costs With the Public 27,075,824 29,799,591 

 Total Net Cost 30,471,384 30,923,927 

Costs Not Assigned To Programs - - 

Less Earned Revenues Not Attributable To Programs - - 

Net Cost Of Operations $ 30,471,384 $ 30,923,927 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 44 -

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002

(IN DOLLARS)

2003 2003 2002 2002

Cumulative 

Results Of 

Operations

Unexpended

Appropriations

Cumulative 

Results Of 

Operations

Unexpended 

Appropriations

Beginning Balances $2,480,692 $ 3,430,784 $ (1,540,606) $ 5,783,386 

Prior Period Adjustments 503,250 

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted 2,480,692 3,430,784 (1,037,356) 5,783,386 

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Received - 32,027,000 - 30,555,000 

Other Adjustments (recissions, etc) (239,600) (66,566)

Appropriations Used 29,834,628 (29,834,628) 32,841,036 (32,841,036)

Other Financing Sources:

Imputed Financing from Costs 

Absorbed by Others

2,319,835 1,600,939 

Total Financing Sources 32,154,463 1,952,772 34,441,975 (2,352,602)

Net Cost of Operations 30,471,384 30,923,927 

Ending Balances $ 4,163,771 $ 5,383,556 $ 2,480,692 $ 3,430,784 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 45 -

STATEMENT OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES

FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002

(IN DOLLARS)

2003 2002

BUDGETARY RESOURCES:

Budget Authority: 

Appropriations $ 32,027,000 $ 30,555,000 

Unobligated Balance:

Beginning of Period 1,152,230 553,800 

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections: 

Earned

 Collected 2,608,931 2,528,688 

Anticipated for Rest of Year, Without Advances - -

Subtotal 35,788,161 33,637,488 

Recoveries of Prior-Year Obligations:

Actual 2,253,372 1,270,487 

Anticipated

Permanently Not Available (239,601) (66,566)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 37,801,932 $ 34,841,409 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 46 -

STATEMENT OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES

FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002

(IN DOLLARS)

2003 2002

STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES:

Obligations Incurred:

Direct $ 34,044,501 $ 31,160,491 

Reimbursable 2,608,931 2,528,688 

Subtotal 36,653,432 33,689,179 

Unobligated Balance:

Apportioned 151,932 73,991 

Anticipated - -

Unobligated Balance Not Available 996,568 1,078,239 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 37,801,932 $ 34,841,409 

RELATIONSHIP OF OBLIGATIONS TO OUTLAYS:

Obligated Balance, Net, Beginning of Period $ 5,101,269 $ 10,709,894 

Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:

Undelivered Orders (4,234,901) (2,278,507)

Accounts Payable (1,814,242) (2,822,762)

Outlays:

Disbursements 33,452,186 38,027,317 

Collections (2,608,931) (2,528,688)

Subtotal 30,843,255 35,498,629 

Less: Offsetting Receipts - -

Net Outlays $30,843,255 $ 35,498,629 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 47 -

STATEMENT OF FINANCING

FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002

(IN DOLLARS)

2003 2002

Resources Used to Finance Activities:

Budgetary Resources Obligated

Obligations Incurred $ 36,653,432 $ 33,689,179 

Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and 

Recoveries

(4,862,303) (3,799,175)

Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 31,791,129 29,890,004 

Other Resources

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 2,319,835 1,600,939 

Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities 2,319,835 1,600,939 

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 34,110,964 31,490,943 

Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of 

Operations:

Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods, Services and 

Benefits Ordered But Not Yet Provided (1,956,501) 2,951,079 

Resources That Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods - (234,396)

Resources That Finance the Acquisition of Assets (1,882,268) (3,897,272)

Other Resources or Adjustments to Net Obligated Resources That Do 

Not Affect Net Cost of Operations - 503,202 

Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of 

Operations

(3,838,769) (677,387)

 

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations 30,272,195 30,813,556 

Components of the Net Cost of Operations That will not Require 

or Generate Resources in the Current Period:

Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:

Increase in Annual Leave Liability 6,220 -

Other 34,390 

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That will not 

Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period 40,610 -

Components Not Requiring or Generating Resources:

Depreciation and Amortization 161,313 110,464 

Other (2,734) (93)

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That will not 

Require or Generate Resources 199,189 110,371 

Net Cost of Operations $ 30,471,384 $ 30,923,927 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 48 -

STATEMENT OF CUSTODIAL ACTIVITY

FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002

(IN DOLLARS)

2003 2002

REVENUE ACTIVITY

Sources of Cash Collections

Miscellaneous $ 23,165 $ 130 

Total Cash Collections 23,165 130 

Accrual Adjustments

Total Custodial Revenue 23,165 130 

DISPOSITION OF COLLECTIONS

Transferred to Others (by Recipient) 23,165 130 

Increase/(Decrease) in Amounts Yet to be 

Transferred

- -

Retained by the Reporting Entity - -

Net Custodial Activity $ - $-

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 49 -

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Years Ended September 30, 2003 and 2002

NOTE 1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

A. Reporting Entity

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the 

Executive branch that serves as the guardian of Federal merit systems. The Board was 

established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), with a mission of ensuring that 

employees are protected against abuses by agency management, that Executive branch agencies 

make employment decisions in accordance with the merit systems principles, and that Federal 

merit systems are kept free of prohibited personnel practices. 

B. Basis of Presentation

These financial statements are provided to meet the requirements of the Government 

Management and Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994. The statements consist of the Balance Sheet, 

Statement of Net Cost, Statement of Changes in Net Position, Statement of Budgetary Resources, 

Statement of Financing, and Statement of Custodial Activity.

These financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of 

operations of MSPB. These statements were prepared from the books and records of MSPB in 

conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 01-09, Form and Content of Agency Financial 

Statements. 

C. Basis of Accounting

Transactions are recorded on an accrual accounting basis and a budgetary basis. Under the 

accrual method, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when 

liabilities are incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary accounting 

facilitates compliance with legal constraints and controls over use of Federal funds. 

To assist OMB in recommending and publishing comprehensive accounting standards and 

principles for agencies of the Federal Government, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller 

General of the United States, the Director of OMB, and the Joint Financial Management 

Improvement Program (JFMIP) established the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

(FASAB) in 1990. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountant’s (AICPA) Council 

designated FASAB as the accounting standards authority for Federal Government entities.

D. Revenues & Other Financing Sources

MSPB receives funding through Congressional appropriation from the budget of the United 

States. Annual appropriations are used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital 

expenditures for essential personal property. Appropriations are recognized as revenues at the 

time the related program or administrative expenses are incurred. Appropriations expended for 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 50 -

capitalized property and equipment are recognized as expenses when an asset is consumed in 

operations. In addition to appropriated funding received, MSPB has in its appropriations 

language authorization to collect administrative expenses to adjudicate retirement appeals from 

the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund. These transfers do not add to 

Government costs, but simply transfer the costs to individual agencies. 

E. Fund Balance with Treasury

Funds with Department of the Treasury primarily represent appropriated funds that are 

available to pay current liabilities and finance authorized purchase commitments. See Note 2 for 

additional information. 

F. Cash

As of September 30, 2003 and 2002, cash on hand totaled $-0- and $59,111, respectively.

G. Accounts Receivable, Net

MSPB records accounts receivable as services are provided to customers. All amounts are 

considered collectible; therefore, no estimate is formulated for the allowance of uncollectible 

accounts. Generally, accounts receivable consists of either amounts receivable from Federal 

agencies for services provided, or from miscellaneous advances submitted to employees for 

travel expenses. As of September 30, 2003 and 2002, accounts receivable totaled $2,827 and 

$140, respectively.

H. General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net

MSPB’s property, plant and equipment is recorded at cost and is depreciated using the 

straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the asset. Major alterations and renovations 

are capitalized, while maintenance and repair costs are charged to expense as incurred. MSPB’s 

capitalization threshold is $50,000 for individual purchases and $500,000 for bulk purchases. 

The service life for office equipment is 10 years. See Note 3 for additional information.

I. Liabilities

Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources likely to be paid by MSPB as a 

result of transactions or events that have already occurred. No liability can be paid, however, 

absent an appropriation. Liabilities for which an appropriation has not been enacted are, 

therefore, classified as not covered by budgetary resources, and there is no certainty that the 

appropriation will be enacted. Also, liabilities can be abrogated by the Government, acting in its 

sovereign capacity.

J. Accounts Payable

Accounts payable consists of amounts owed to other Federal agencies and trade accounts 

payable.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 51 -

K. Annual, Sick, and Other Leave

Annual leave is accrued as it is earned, and the accrual is reduced as leave is taken. Each 

year, the balance in the accrued leave account is adjusted to reflect current pay rates. To the 

extent current or prior year appropriations are not available to fund annual leave earned but not 

taken, funding will be obtained from future financing sources. Sick leave and other types of nonvested leave are expensed as taken.

L. Retirement Plans

MSPB employees participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal 

Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). FERS was established by the enactment of Public Law 

99-335. Pursuant to this law, FERS and Social Security automatically cover most employees 

hired after December 31, 1983. Employees hired before January 1, 1984 elected to join either 

FERS and Social Security or remain in CSRS.

All employees are eligible to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). For those 

employees participating in the FERS, a TSP account is automatically established and MSPB 

makes a mandatory 1 percent contribution to this account. In addition, MSPB makes matching 

contributions, ranging from 1 to 4 percent, for FERS eligible employees who contribute to their 

TSP accounts. Matching contributions are not made to the TSP accounts established by CSRS 

employees.

FERS employees and certain CSRS reinstatement employees are eligible to participate in the 

Social Security program after retirement. In these instances, MSPB remits the employer’s share 

of the required contribution.

MSPB does not report on its financial statements information pertaining to the retirement 

plans covering its employees. Reporting amounts such as plan assets, accumulated plan benefits, 

and related unfunded liabilities, if any, is the responsibility of the Office of Personnel 

Management.

M. Imputed Costs / Financing Sources

Federal Government entities often receive goods and services from other Federal 

Government entities without reimbursing the providing entity for all the related costs. In 

addition, Federal Government entities also incur costs that are paid in total or in part by other 

entities. An imputed financing source is recognized by the receiving entity for costs that are paid 

by other entities. MSPB recognized imputed costs and financing sources in fiscal years 2003 and 

2002 to the extent directed by the OMB. 

N. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements requires management to make estimates and 

assumptions that affect amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. 

Such estimates and assumptions could change in the future as more information becomes known, 

which could impact the amounts reported and disclosed herein. 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 52 -

O. Expired Accounts and Canceled Authority

Unless otherwise specified by law, annual authority expires for incurring new obligations at 

the beginning of the subsequent fiscal year. The account into which the annual authority is 

placed is called the expired account. For five fiscal years, the expired account is available for 

expenditure to liquidate valid obligations incurred during the unexpired period. Adjustments are 

allowed to increase or decrease valid obligations incurred during the unexpired period but not 

previously reported. At the end of the fifth expired year, the expired account is canceled.

NOTE 2. FUND BALANCE WITH TREASURY

 2003 2002

Fund Balances

Appropriated Funds $ 7,197,643 $6,194,387

Status of Fund Balance with Treasury

 Unobligated Balance Available $ 151,932 $ 73,991 

 Unobigated Balance not yet Available 996,568 1,078,238

 Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 6,049,143 5,042,158

Total $ 7,197,643 $6,194,387
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 53 -

NOTE 3. GENERAL PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT

Schedule of Property, Plant, and Equipment as of September 30, 2003

Description

Acquisition

Cost

Accumulated

Depreciation

Net

Book Value

Leasehold Improvements $ 1,201,851 ($289,664) $ 912,187

Office Equipment 213,847 ( 213,847) -0-

Internal Use Software 5,422,187 (89,008) 5,333,179

TOTALS $ 6,837,885 ($592,519) $ 6,245,366

Schedule of Property, Plant, and Equipment as of September 30, 2002

Description

Acquisition

Cost

Accumulated

Depreciation

Net

Book Value

Leasehold Improvements $ 739,994 ($149,713) $ 590,281

Office Equipment 213,847 ( 213,847) -0-

Construction in Progress 53,109 -0- 53,109

Internal Use Software 3,948,667 (67,646) 3,881,021

TOTALS $ 4,955,617 ($431,206) $ 4,524,411

NOTE 4. LIABILITIES

The accrued liabilities for MSPB are comprised of program expense accruals, payroll 

accruals, and unfunded annual leave earned by employees. Program expense accruals represent 

expenses that were incurred prior to year-end but were not paid. Similarly, payroll accruals 

represent payroll expenses that were incurred prior to year-end but were not paid. 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 54 -

NOTE 4. (CONTINUED)

Schedule of Liabilities as of September 30

2003 2002

Intragovernmental

 Accounts Payable

 Payroll Taxes Payable

Total Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable

Payroll Accrual and Other 

Unfunded Leave 

$ 4,810 

 421,218 

 426,028

 

 331,765

 1,090,839

 2,050,032

 

$ 464

 1,594,543

 1,595,007

 

 181,885

 1,045,869

 2,043,812

Total Liabilities $ 3,898,664 $ 4,866,573

NOTE 5. NET POSITION

MSPB’s net position is composed of unexpended appropriation and cumulative results of 

operations. Net position as of September 30, 2003 and 2002 consisted of the following:

Unexpended Appropriations: 2003 2002

 Unobligated

 Available $ 151,932 $ 73,991

 Unavailable 996,568 1,078,239

 Undelivered Orders 4,235,056 2,278,554

 Total $ 5,383,556 $ 3,430,784

 Cumulative Results of Operations 4,163,771 2,480,692

Net Position $ 9,547,327 $ 5,911,476
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 55 -

NOTE 6. OPERATING LEASES

MSPB occupies office space at four locations with lease agreements that are accounted for 

as operating leases. The first agreement for office headquarters began on June 1, 2000, and 

expires on May 31, 2010. Annual lease payments of $1,504,295 are increased annually by 3 

percent of the Base Rental rate in effect for the prior lease year. In the sixth year of the lease, the 

Base Rental Rate shall increase $2.50 per square foot. The second lease began on February 15, 

2000, and expires on February 14, 2005. Annual lease payments of $103,592 remain constant for 

the lease term specified above. A third lease began on September 15, 2000, and expires on 

September 14, 2010. Annual lease payments of $152,216 are increased 2.5 percent over the prior 

year adjusted annual rent. In year six, the payment will increase $1.50 per rented square foot 

over the annual rent for the previous 12 months. The final lease agreement commencing on 

November 1, 2001, and terminating on December 31, 2011, has a base annual rental rate of 

$98,802. The base rent is increased annually 2 percent over the prior year adjusted annual rent. 

This lease contains renewal rights for an additional five years. MSPB also leases warehouse 

space for an annual amount of $22,800. This lease expires on March 31, 2013. MSPB’s other 

office locations are rented through GSA according to occupancy agreements. These occupancy 

agreements may be terminated at any time by MSPB with four months notice.

Schedule of Future Minimum Lease Payments

2004 $ 2,056,945

2005 2,052,583

2006 2,165,470

2007 2,359,284

2008 2,427,345

After Five Years 4,334,334

TOTAL FUTURE PAYMENTS $15,395,961
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 56 -

Independent Auditor’s Reports

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Washington, D.C.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board as of September 30, 

2003, and the related statement of net cost and results of operations and changes in net position, and the combined 

statement of budgetary resources and financing for the year ended September 30, 2003. These principal statements 

are the responsibility of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on 

these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; 

the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller 

General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit Requirements 

for Federal Financial Statements. Those standards and OMB Bulletin No. 01-02 require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the principal statements are free of material misstatement. An 

audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial 

statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by 

management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a 

reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the principal statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position 

of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board as of September 30, 2003, the results of its operations, changes in its net 

position, budgetary resources, and financing for the year ended September 30, 2003 in conformity with accounting 

principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated October 24, 2003 on our 

consideration of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board's internal control over financial reporting and a report 

dated October 24, 2003 on its compliance with laws and regulations.

The information in "Management's Discussion and Analysis" is presented for the purpose of additional analysis and 

is required by OMB Bulletin No. 01-09. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of 

inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the supplementary information. 

However, we did not audit the information and, accordingly, express no opinion on it.

Arlington, Virginia 

October 24, 2003

ARLINGTON

2300 CLARENDON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000

ARLINGTON, VA 22201

(703) 622-0800 ' FAX: (703) 622-0806

mail@browneo-cpas.com

RICHMOND

100 WEST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 102

RICHMOND, VA 23220

(804) 648-2017 ' FAX: (804) 648-2018

browneo-cpas-rich@erols.com
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 57 -

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Washington, D.C.

We have audited the principal statements (hereinafter referred to as “financial statements”) of the U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board (the Merit Systems) as of and for the year ended September 30, 2003, and have issued our report 

thereon dated October 24, 2003. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted 

in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing 

Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. 

In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Merit Systems’ internal control over financial reporting by 

obtaining an understanding of the Merit Systems’ internal control, determined whether internal controls had been 

placed in operation, assessed control risk, and performed tests of controls in order to determine our auditing 

procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements. We limited our internal control 

testing to those controls necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02. We did not test 

all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity 

Act of 1982, such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations. The objective of our audit was not to 

provide assurance on internal control. Consequently, we do not provide an opinion on internal control. 

In addition, with respect to internal control related to performance measures reported in "Management's Discussion 

and Analysis," we obtained an understanding of the design of significant internal controls relating to the existence 

and completeness assertions, as required by OMB Bulletin No. 01-02. Our procedures were not designed to provide 

assurance on internal control over reported performance measures, and, accordingly, we do not provide an opinion 

on such controls. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the Merit Systems, OMB, and Congress, 

and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Arlington, Virginia

October 24, 2003

ARLINGTON

2300 CLARENDON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000

ARLINGTON, VA 22201

(703) 622-0800 ' FAX: (703) 622-0806

mail@browneo-cpas.com

RICHMOND

100 WEST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 102

RICHMOND, VA 23220

(804) 648-2017 ' FAX: (804) 648-2018

browneo-cpas-rich@erols.com
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 58 -

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Washington, D.C.

We have audited the principal statements (hereinafter referred to as “financial statements”) of the U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board (the Merit Systems) as of and for the year ended September 30, 2003, and have issued our report 

thereon dated October 24, 2003. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted 

in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing 

Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.

The management of the Merit Systems is responsible for complying with laws and regulations applicable to the Merit 

Systems. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Merit Systems’ financial statements are free 

of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations, 

noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement 

amounts, and certain other laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, including the requirements 

referred to in the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996. We limited our tests of 

compliance to these provisions and we did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to the Merit 

Systems.

The results of our tests of compliance disclosed no instances of noncompliance with other laws and regulations 

discussed in the preceding paragraph exclusive of FFMIA that are required to be reported under Government 

Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 01-02.

Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether the Merit Systems’ financial management systems substantially 

comply with the Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and 

the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. To meet this requirement, we 

performed tests of compliance with FFMIA section 803(a) requirements.

The results of our tests disclosed no instances in which the Merit Systems’ financial management systems did not 

substantially comply with the three requirements discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Providing an opinion on compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations was not an objective of our 

audit, and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the Merit Systems, OMB, and 

Congress, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. 

Arlington, Virginia

October 24, 2003

ARLINGTON

2300 CLARENDON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000

ARLINGTON, VA 22201

(703) 622-0800 ' FAX: (703) 622-0806

mail@browneo-cpas.com

RICHMOND

100 WEST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 102

RICHMOND, VA 23220

(804) 648-2017 ' FAX: (804) 648-2018

browneo-cpas-rich@erols.com
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 59 -

Management Representation Letter

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Office of the Chairman

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 653-6772, ext. 1310; Fax: (202) 653-7299

Chief of Staff

October 24, 2003

MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATION LETTER

Mr. Tyrone Brown, Managing Member

Brown & Company CPAs, PLLC

2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 22201

Dear Mr. Brown:

This letter is in connection with your audit of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (Merit System) Principal 

Statements (also referred to as “financial statements”) as of September 30, 2003 and for the year then ended for the 

purposes of (1) expressing an opinion as to whether the Principal Statements are presented fairly, in all material 

respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and (2) 

reporting whether the agency’s financial management systems substantially comply with Federal financial 

management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and the U.S. Government Standard 

General Ledger at the transaction level as of September 30, 2003.

We confirm, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the following representations made to you during your audit, 

that these representations are as of the date of your auditor’s report, and pertain to the period covered by the financial

statements.

1. We are responsible for the fair presentation of the Principal Statements and Required Supplementary 

Stewardship Information in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of

America.

2. The financial statements are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in 

the United States of America.

3. We have made available to you all

 financial records and related data;

 where applicable, minutes of meetings of the Board or summaries of actions of recent meetings for 

which minutes have not been prepared, and 

 communications from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning noncompliance 

with or deficiencies in financial reporting practices.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 60 -

4. There are no material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records 

underlying the financial statements or disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.

5. Merit Systems has satisfactory title to all owned assets, including stewardship property, plant and 

equipment: such assets have no liens or encumbrances, nor have any assets been pledged.

6. We have no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and 

liabilities.

7. Guarantees under which the agency is contingently liable have been properly reported or disclosed.

8. Related party transactions and related accounts receivable or payable, including assessments, loans, and 

guarantees have been properly recorded and disclosed.

9. All intra-entity transactions and balances have been appropriately identified and eliminated for financial 

reporting purposes, unless otherwise noted. All intra-governmental transactions and balances have been 

appropriately recorded, reported, and disclosed. We have reconciled intra-governmental transactions and 

balances with the appropriate trading partners for the four fiduciary transactions identified in Treasury’s 

Intra-governmental Fiduciary Transactions Accounting Guide, and other intra-governmental assets, 

liability and revenue amounts as required by OMB Bulletin 01-09.

10. There are no known:

 possible violations of laws or regulations whose effects should be considered for disclosure in the 

financial statements or as a basis for recording a loss contingency:

 material liabilities or gain or loss contingencies that are required to be accrued or disclosed, that 

have not been accrued or disclosed; or

 unasserted claims or assessments that are probable of assertion and that must be disclosed, that 

have not been disclosed.

11. We have complied with all aspects of contractual agreements that would have a material effect on the 

financial statements in the event of noncompliance.

12. No material events or transactions have occurred subsequent to September 30, 2003 that have not been 

properly recorded in the Principal Statements and Required Supplementary Stewardship Information or 

disclosed in the notes thereto.

13. There has been no material fraud (intentional misstatements or omissions of amounts or disclosures in 

financial statements and misappropriation of assets that could have a material affect on the Principal 

Statements or Required Supplementary Stewardship Information) or any known fraud involving 

management or employees who have significant roles in internal control.

14. We are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control.

15. Pursuant to the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, we have assessed the effectiveness of Merit 

Systems’ internal control in achieving the following objectives:

 Reliability of financial reporting – transactions are properly recorded, processed, and summarized 

to permit the preparation of the Principal Statements and Required Supplementary Stewardship 

Information in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of 

America, and that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or 

disposition:
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 61 -

 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations – transactions are executed in accordance with: 

(i) laws governing the use of budget authority and other laws and regulations that could have a 

direct and material effect on the financial statements, and (ii) any other laws, regulations, and 

government-wide policies identified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 

Appendix C of OMB’s Audit Bulletin; and 

 Reliability of performance reporting – transactions and other data that support reported 

performance measures are properly recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the preparation 

of performance information in accordance with criteria stated by management.

16. Those controls in place on September 30, 2003 provided reasonable assurance that the foregoing objectives 

are met.

17. We are responsible for implementing and maintaining financial management systems that comply 

substantial with Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting 

standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger (SGL) at the transaction level.

18. We have assessed the financial management systems to determine whether they comply substantially with 

these Federal financial management systems requirements. Our assessment was based on guidance issued 

by OMB.

19. The financial management systems complied substantially with Federal financial management systems 

requirement, applicable Federal accounting standards, and the SGL at the transaction level as of September 

30, 2003.

20. We are responsible for the Merit Systems’ compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

21. We have identified and disclosed to you all laws and regulations that have a direct and material effect on the 

determination of financial statement amounts.

22. We have disclosed to you all known instances of noncompliance with laws and regulations.

______________________________

Richard Banchoff
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 62 -

SIGNIFICANT BOARD DECISIONS ISSUED IN FISCAL YEAR 2003 

WITH RELATED OPINIONS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT 

OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

In FY 2003, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued several significant decisions. Some 

of these decisions are noteworthy because they changed or clarified existing case law. In its 

decisions, the Board attempted to follow the plain language of the applicable statutes, as well as 

the legislative intent. It also tried to take a commonsense, practical approach to deciding the 

issues presented to it.

This summary begins with a case in which the Board reexamined longstanding precedent on 

what constitutes a constructive removal of an administrative law judge. The summary then 

discusses cases interpreting the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Veterans 

Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. The summary concludes with a discussion of Board 

decisions that applied a flexible concept of constitutional due process, discussed when attorney 

fees should be awarded, sustained an agency action taken under performance standards 

developed for a demonstration project, clarified the circumstances under which an agency 

demotes an employee by reduction in force, reversed a prior holding that the Office of Personnel 

Management is bound by the terms of a settlement agreement to which it was not a party, and 

explained when a survivor annuity can be paid to a full-time student who does not attend classes 

in a school building.

In its 1985 decision in In re Doyle, 29 M.S.P.R. 170 (1985), the Board created a theory that 

an administrative law judge (ALJ) could be “constructively” removed even though he still held 

the position of ALJ. The Doyle theory held that even though an ALJ still occupied an ALJ 

position, he could be “constructively” removed if the agency interfered with his qualified judicial 

independence. The Board reexamined that theory in Tunik v. Social Security Administration, 93 

M.S.P.R. 482 (July 27, 2003).

In Tunik, the Board started with the plain meaning of the term “removal” in 5 U.S.C. § 7521, 

which governs the procedures that an agency must follow before removing an ALJ. The Board 

applied the relevant rules of statutory construction and harmonized the term “removal” in section 

7521 with the way that the term “removal” has been interpreted in 5 U.S.C. § 7512, which 

applies to employees other than ALJs. In so doing, the Board concluded that it does not have 

jurisdiction over a removal or “constructive” removal of an ALJ unless the ALJ has been 

separated or involuntarily reassigned from the position of ALJ. The Board thus overruled Doyle.

In FY 2003, the Board issued four opinions of particular interest implicating the 

Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). The Board in White v. Department of the Air Force, 2003 

WL 22175176 (Sept. 11, 2003), looked at the plain meaning of the statute to determine the legal

standard for ascertaining whether an appellant had a reasonable belief that he made a protected 

disclosure. The Board found that the statute does not include a requirement that an appellant 

provide “irrefragable proof” to rebut a presumption that agency officials perform their duties 

correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with law and regulations. Thus, the Board 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 63 -

found that any statement to the contrary in the opinion issued by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999), was 

dictum.

The Board went on in White to state that the test for determining reasonable belief is an 

objective one. The test is whether a disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts 

known to and readily ascertainable by the appellant could reasonably have concluded that the 

agency’s actions constituted gross mismanagement. Applying this test, the Board found that Mr. 

White did not prove that he had a reasonable belief that agency officials grossly mismanaged a 

quality education program. 

In Greenspan v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 94 M.S.P.R. 247 (Sept. 15, 2003), the 

Board further clarified its decision in Rusin v. Department of the Treasury, 92 M.S.P.R. 298 

(2002). It did so by stating that an appellant establishes the Board’s jurisdiction over his 

individual right of action (IRA) appeal if he shows that he exhausted his Special Counsel remedy 

and, irrespective of how many protected disclosures and personnel actions are alleged, he makes 

a nonfrivolous allegation that he made at least one protected disclosure which was a contributing 

factor in at least one personnel action.

The Board in Berkowitz v. Department of the Treasury, 2003 WL 22299183 (Sept. 30, 

2003), reversed the administrative judge’s finding of lack of jurisdiction over the IRA appeal. 

The Board found that the appellant made a non-frivolous allegation that he had a reasonable 

belief of a violation of law when he reported that the agency was improperly spending 

appropriated funds and misleading Congress.

The Board in Czarkowski v. Department of the Navy, 93 M.S.P.R. 514 (July 7, 2003), agreed 

with the administrative judge that the appellant was exempt from coverage under the WPA. This 

was so because the evidence showed that the organizational unit in which she worked had been 

determined by the President, or his designee, to have as its principal function “the conduct of 

foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities.” Since the statute at 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) excludes employees who work in such units from coverage under the WPA, 

the Board lacked jurisdiction over the appellant’s IRA appeal. In response to a concern that the 

Board’s decision would “damage national security” by silencing whistleblowers, the Board noted 

the clear language of the statute and the fact that Congress has provided whistleblower protection 

to employees not covered by the WPA by enacting laws such as the 1998 Intelligence 

Community Protection Act.

In FY 2003, the Board issued a trio of significant cases involving the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act (VEOA). The Board in Abrahamsen v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 94 

M.S.P.R. 377 (Sept. 23, 2003), clarified the jurisdictional test for VEOA cases. There, the Board 

said that it has jurisdiction over a VEOA appeal if the appellant (1) shows that he exhausted his 

remedy with the Department of Labor, and (2) makes nonfrivolous allegations that (i) he is a 

preference eligible within the meaning of the VEOA statute, (ii) the action(s) at issue took place 

on or after the October 30, 1998, enactment date of VEOA, and (iii) the agency violated his 

rights under a specific statute or regulation relating to veterans’ preference.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 64 -

The two other VEOA cases—Waddell v. U.S. Postal Service, 94 M.S.P.R. 411 (Sept. 24, 

2003), and Williams v. Department of the Navy, 94 M.S.P.R. 400 (Sept. 24, 2003)—involved 

issues of timeliness. The Board in Waddell found that no statute or regulation gives it the 

authority to review a decision by the Department of Labor (DOL) to waive the timeliness of a 

VEOA complaint filed with the Secretary of Labor. Thus, if the DOL waives the untimeliness of 

a VEOA complaint and issues a decision on the merits, the appellant has exhausted his DOL 

remedy for purposes of establishing the Board’s jurisdiction over his VEOA appeal.

The Board in Williams was faced with the question of whether the statute bars the Board’s 

consideration of any VEOA appeal which is filed more than 15 days after the appellant receives 

notice from DOL that his DOL complaint could not be resolved. The VEOA statute at 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3330a(d)(1) provides that “in no event” may a Board appeal be filed more than 15 days after 

the date on which the complainant receives written notice from DOL that it was unable to resolve 

his complaint. The Board held that the language in the statute is plain and allows for no 

circumstances under which a Board appeal can be filed later than the 15th day after which the 

appellant receives the DOL notice.

The Board had an opportunity to discuss the concept of “due process” in Rawls v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 2003 WL 22299163 (Sept. 30, 2003). There, the Board stated that due process is 

a flexible concept that depends on the nature of the case and the procedural protections required 

by the specific situation. In Rawls, although the agency did not issue a notice proposing to 

suspend the appellant before suspending him for his arrest on a charge of first-degree murder, it 

did afford him a post-suspension opportunity to grieve the suspension immediately. The agency 

also did not issue a notice proposing to remove the appellant for being convicted of a crime. 

Again, however, the agency offered the appellant a chance to file a grievance before the proposed 

removal was effected. The Board found that the appellant was given an opportunity to tell his 

side of the story, by filing a grievance, before the effective date of the removal, as well as a right, 

which he exercised, to file a Board appeal after the removal action was taken. Under those 

circumstances, the Board found that the agency did not deny the appellant minimum due process.

Entitlement to attorney fees was the issue in Arnold v. Department of the Air Force, 

94 M.S.P.R. 17 (Aug. 6, 2003). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 

found that the appellant was a “prevailing party” for purposes of an award of attorney fees and 

sent the case back to the Board. The Board found that, at least in this case, it had to concur in 

EEOC’s decision that, under discrimination law, the appellant was a “prevailing party.” That did 

not end the inquiry, however. The Board still had to determine whether, under civil service law 

at 5 U.S.C. § 7701(g)(2), the appellant was entitled to fees. That statute gives the Board the same

discretion as Federal district courts to decide whether an award of fees is reasonable under the 

circumstances. The circumstances in Arnold showed that the discrimination issue was 

conclusively decided before the appellant filed his Board appeal, and that the appellant received 

no more relief from the Board than he had received from his employing agency prior to filing a 

Board appeal. Given these facts, the Board held that the appellant was not entitled to attorney 

fees incurred in proceedings before the Board.

The appeal in Guillebeau v. Department of the Navy, 93 M.S.P.R. 379 (Mar. 28, 2003), 

involved performance standards created in an OPM-approved personnel demonstration project. 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 65 -

The Board reversed the administrative judge’s finding that the agency failed to prove that the 

appellant did not meet those performance standards. The Board noted that in establishing the 

demonstration project, OPM allowed the agency to waive the requirement that it establish critical 

elements to measure an employee’s performance. Rather, the appellant’s performance was 

measured by “requirements and expectations” that apply to “organizational goals, strategies and 

values.” The Board found that the agency proved that the appellant simply failed to complete her 

work assignments during the time that she was given to show acceptable performance. Thus, the 

appellant was properly removed.

On a somewhat related topic, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

agreed with the Board in Scarnati v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 344 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 

Sept. 25, 2003), that the Department of Veterans Affairs has discretionary authority to appoint 

health care personnel under 38 U.S.C. § 7401(1) without regard to civil service requirements. 

The appellants in the consolidated appeals in Burger v. U.S. Postal Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 582 

(July 30, 2003) (Burger II), claimed that the Postal Service demoted them by reduction in force 

(RIF). The Board clarified its earlier decision in Burger v. U.S. Postal Service, 88 M.S.P.R. 579 

(2001) (Burger I). It did so by relying on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Harants v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 130 F.3d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Board found that the court in Harants held that, to 

show a RIF demotion, an appellant must establish the following: (1) He bid to and accepted a 

lower-grade position after the agency actually informed him that his original position had in fact 

been abolished, and (2) his bid to and acceptance of the lower-grade position occurred after the 

agency expressly notified him that he would not be assigned to a position at the same grade as his 

former position. Finding that none of the appellants made the required showing, the Board 

dismissed all of their appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

Two months after the Board issued its opinion in Burger II, the Federal Circuit decided 

Marcino v. U.S. Postal Service, 344 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2003). The administrative 

judge in Marcino found that the appellant’s acceptance of a level 5 position was voluntary 

because the appellant was never separated from his level 6 position, and he was not told that 

there was no possibility of reassignment to a new position at grade level 6. Chairman Marshall 

agreed with the administrative judge in the split-vote order in Marcino v. U.S. Postal Service,

93 M.S.P.R. 237 (Jan. 23, 2003). The court also agreed with the administrative judge, stating, as 

the Board had done in Burger II, that the Board does not have jurisdiction over an alleged RIF 

demotion unless the agency informed the employee that his position had been abolished and that 

he would not be reassigned to a position at the same grade level. 

The Board decided two retirement appeals of particular note in FY 2003—Parker and SethMorris. The case of Parker v. Office of Personnel Management, 93 M.S.P.R. 529 (July 11, 

2003), was before the Board on a request from the Office of Personnel Management that the 

Board reconsider its earlier decision to award the appellant an annuity. On reconsideration, the 

Board found that the appellant was not entitled to an annuity because OPM was not required to 

credit him with service time which his employing agency attempted to give him under a 

settlement agreement. In so finding, the Board overruled Jordan v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 77 M.S.P.R. 610 (1998), in which it had found that OPM is conclusively bound by 

the terms of a settlement agreement to which OPM was not a party. Rather, the Board held that 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 66 -

OPM, as the administrator of the Retirement Fund, has the authority, subject to Board review, to 

refuse to give effect to a personnel action taken as a result of a settlement agreement when OPM 

decides that the action is an artifice designed to evade the statutory requirements for entitlement 

to an annuity, which was the situation in this appeal.

In Seth-Morris v. Office of Personnel Management, 94 M.S.P.R. 166 (Sept. 9, 2003), the 

Board disagreed with OPM that the term “in residence in a high school” in 5 U.S.C. § 8341 

means that a full-time student has to attend classes in a high school building to be entitled to 

survivor benefits. The student in Seth-Morris was enrolled full time in a fully accredited 

“alternative high school program” run by the county school system, had to pick up his 

assignments once a week and meet regularly with his teachers, but was allowed to complete his 

class work and assignments at home. The evidence showed that the student finished a regular 

high school course of study in the normal four years and graduated with the rest of his class. The 

Board found that, under these facts, Congress intended that the student receive full-time student 

survivor benefits even though he did not attend class in a school building. It therefore reversed 

OPM’s decision to deny the appellant’s application for a full-time student survivor annuity for 

her son. 
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 67 -

FY 2003 CASE PROCESSING STATISTICS

SUMMARY OF CASES DECIDED BY MSPB IN FY 2003

Cases Decided in MSPB Regional/Field Offices 

(RO)/FOs):

 Appeals 1 6,601

 Addendum Cases 2 514

 Stay Requests 3 112 

TOTAL Cases Decided in RO/FOs 7,227

Cases Decided by Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs) – Original Jurisdiction Only 4

15

Cases Decided by the Board:

Appellate Jurisdiction:

 Petitions for Review (PFRs) – Appeals 973

 Petitions for Review (PFRs) – Addendum Cases 117

 Reviews of Stay Request Rulings 0

 Requests for Stay of Board Order 5

 Reopenings 5 9

 Court Remands 13

 Compliance Referrals 28

 EEOC Non-concurrence Cases 3

 Arbitration Cases 4 

Subtotal – Appellate Jurisdiction 1,152

Original Jurisdiction 6 22

TOTAL Cases Decided by the Board 7 1,174

TOTAL Cases Decided (Board, ALJs, RO/FOs) 8,416

See next page for footnotes.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 68 -

FOOTNOTES TO TABLE

1 Includes 48 appeals decided at headquarters by Office of Regional Operations (ORO).

2 Includes 14 addendum cases decided at headquarters—10 by ORO and 4 by ALJs. Case type 

breakdown: 127 requests for attorney fee awards, 5 requests for compensatory damages 

(discrimination cases only), 280 petitions for enforcement, 83 Board remand cases, and 19 

court remand cases.

3 Includes 70 stay requests in whistleblower cases and 42 in non-whistleblower cases.

4 Initial Decisions issued by ALJ. Case type breakdown: 2 OSC disciplinary actions (nonHatch Act), 1 Hatch Act case, and 3 actions against ALJs; 4 requests for attorney fee awards 

and 2 petitions for enforcement in OSC disciplinary actions (non-Hatch Act); 1 petition for 

enforcement and 1 Board remand in actions against ALJs; 1 informal hearing in a proposed 

SES removal. (In SES removal cases, a report is issued but there is no decision by an ALJ or 

the Board.)

5 Includes 3 cases reopened by the Board on its own motion and 6 cases where OPM requested 

reconsideration.

6 Final Board decisions. Case type breakdown: 2 OSC stay requests, 1 Hatch Act case, 1 PFR 

in a Hatch Act case, 8 PFRs in actions against ALJs, 1 PFR on a request for an attorney fee 

award in an action against an ALJ, and 9 requests for regulation review.

7 In addition to the 1,174 cases closed by the Board with a decision or order, there were 3 

interlocutory appeals decided by the Board in FY 2003. Interlocutory appeals typically raise 

difficult issues or issues not previously addressed by the Board.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 69 -

REGIONAL CASE PROCESSING – FY 2003

DISPOSITION OF APPEALS DECIDED

IN FY 2003 BY TYPE OF CASE

Type of Case Decided Dismissed Not Dismissed Settled Adjudicated

Adverse Action by

 Agency

3136 1416 45% 1720 55% 1160 67% 560 33%

Termination of

 Probationers

423 372 88% 51 12% 41 80% 10 20%

Reduction in Force 280 181 65% 99 35% 34 34% 65 66%

Performance 126 38 30% 88 70% 65 74% 23 26%

Acceptable Level of

 Competence (WIGI)

29 11 38% 18 62% 14 78% 4 22%

Suitability 156 40 26% 116 74% 82 71% 34 29%

CSRS Retirement: Legal 586 255 44% 331 56% 14 4% 317 96%

CSRS Retirement:

Disability

127 58 46% 69 54% 5 7% 64 93%

CSRS Retirement:

 Overpayment

155 61 39% 94 61% 49 52% 45 48%

FERS Retirement 536 184 34% 352 66% 144 41% 208 59%

FERCCA 95 55 58% 40 42% 2 5% 38 95%

Individual Right of

 Action

287 191 67% 96 33% 50 52% 46 48%

Other 665 588 88% 77 12% 41 53% 36 47%

Total 6601 3450 52% 3151 48% 1701 54% 1450 46%

Dismissed and Not Dismissed columns are percentages of Decided column.

Settled and Adjudicated columns are percentages of Not Dismissed column.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 70 -

TYPES OF APPEALS DECIDED IN FY 2003

Total Number of Appeals: 6,601

(Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding)

Termination of Probationers 

(423)

6.4%

Reduction in Force (280)

4.2%

Suitability (156)

2.4%

Acceptable Level of 

Competence (29)

0.4%

Other Appeals (665)

10.1%

Performance (126) 

1.9%

CSRS Retirement: Legal (586)

8.9%

CSRS Retirement: Disability 

(127)

1.9%

CSRS Retirement: 

Overpayment (155)

2.3%

FERS Retirement (536)

8.1%

FERCCA (95)

1.4%

Individual Right of Action 

(287)

4.3%

Adverse Action (3136)

47.5%
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 71 -

DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN FY 2003

THAT WERE NOT DISMISSED

Total Number of Appeals that were Not Dismissed: 3,151

DISPOSITION OF APPEALS ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS

(i.e., Not Dismissed or Settled) IN FY 2003

Based on 1,450 appeals adjudicated on the merits

Mitigated (42)

1%

Settled (1701)

54%

Other (32)

1%

Affirmed (1158)

37%

Reversed (218)

7%

Other (32)

2%

Affirmed (1158)

80%

Reversed (218)

15%

Mitigated (42)

3%
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 72 -

APPEALS DECIDED IN FY 2003 BY AGENCY

Decided Dismissed1

Not

Dismissed1Settled2 Adjudicated2

US Postal Service 1447 862 59.6% 585 40.4% 396 67.7% 189 32.3%

Office, Personnel Mgmt* 1414 542 38.3% 872 61.7% 230 26.4% 642 73.6%

Veterans Affairs 534 300 56.2% 234 43.8% 179 76.5% 55 23.5%

Army 419 234 55.8% 185 44.2% 112 60.5% 73 39.5%

Navy 389 212 54.5% 177 45.5% 104 58.8% 73 41.2%

Justice 380 211 55.5% 169 44.5% 110 65.1% 59 34.9%

Defense 306 171 55.9% 135 44.1% 67 49.6% 68 50.4%

Treasury 303 167 55.1% 136 44.9% 89 65.4% 47 34.6%

Air Force 242 122 50.4% 120 49.6% 70 58.3% 50 41.7%

Agriculture 215 112 52.1% 103 47.9% 69 67.0% 34 33.0%

Interior 191 83 43.5% 108 56.5% 67 62.0% 41 38.0%

Transportation 146 98 67.1% 48 32.9% 19 39.6% 29 60.4%

Homeland Security 122 81 66.4% 41 33.6% 33 80.5% 8 19.5%

Health & Human Serv 73 33 45.2% 40 54.8% 31 77.5% 9 22.5%

Social Security Adm 69 35 50.7% 34 49.3% 26 76.5% 8 23.5%

Labor 45 26 57.8% 19 42.2% 13 68.4% 6 31.6%

General Service Adm 38 26 68.4% 12 31.6% 8 66.7% 4 33.3%

Commerce 35 22 62.9% 13 37.1% 10 76.9% 3 23.1%

Energy 34 15 44.1% 19 55.9% 16 84.2% 3 15.8%

Housing & Urban Dev 28 16 57.1% 12 42.9% 6 50.0% 6 50.0%

Smithsonian Inst 17 3 17.6% 14 82.4% 12 85.7% 2 14.3%

EPA 15 9 60.0% 6 40.0% 2 33.3% 4 66.7%

FDIC 15 5 33.3% 10 66.7% 0 .0% 10 100.0%

NASA 12 7 58.3% 5 41.7% 2 40.0% 3 60.0%

EEOC 11 7 63.6% 4 36.4% 3 75.0% 1 25.0%

State 9 4 44.4% 5 55.6% 2 40.0% 3 60.0%

Adm Office of US Courts 7 5 71.4% 2 28.6% 0 .0% 2 100.0%

NARA 7 2 28.6% 5 71.4% 4 80.0% 1 20.0%

SBA 7 2 28.6% 5 71.4% 4 80.0% 1 20.0%

Education 6 0 .0% 6 100.0% 3 50.0% 3 50.0%

Corp for National & 

Community Service

5 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0%

GPO 5 2 40.0% 3 60.0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3%

Securities & Exchange Com 5 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 2 100.0% 0 .0%

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

Other 4 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 73 -

APPEALS DECIDED IN FY 2003 BY AGENCY

(continued)

Decided Dismissed1

Not

Dismissed1Settled2 Adjudicated2

Armed Forces Retirement 

Home

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

Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

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

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

Nuclear Regulatory Com 3 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 2 100.0% 0 .0%

Boundary & Water Com: 

US/MEX

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

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

Court Serv & Offend Super 

Agency for DC

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

National Credit Union Adm 2 0 .0% 2 100.0% 0 .0% 2 100.0%

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

Peace Corps 2 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 1 100.0%

Architect of the Capitol 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Bd for International 

Broadcasting

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

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

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

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

Fed Trade Comm 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Gov of the District of 

Columbia

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

Library of Congress 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

National Science 

Foundation

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

National Transportation 

Safety Bd

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

National Foundation for Arts 

& Humanities

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

Office of Administration 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Office of Special Counsel 1 0 .0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 .0%

Panama Canal Comm 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Presidio Trust 1 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

US International 

Development Agency

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

US International Trade 

Comm

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

TOTAL 6601 3450 52.3% 3151 47.7% 1701 54.0% 1450 46.0%

* 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."
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 74 -

APPEALS ADJUDICATED* IN FY 2003 BY AGENCY

Adjudicated Affirmed Reversed

Mitigated

Modified Other

US Postal Service 189 154 81.5% 23 12.2% 12 6.3% 0 .0%

Office, Personnel Mgmt 642 474 73.8% 140 21.8% 3 .5% 25 3.9%

Veterans Affairs 55 43 78.2% 9 16.4% 3 5.5% 0 .0%

Army 73 61 83.6% 9 12.3% 3 4.1% 0 .0%

Navy 73 66 90.4% 6 8.2% 1 1.4% 0 .0%

Justice 59 47 79.7% 7 11.9% 3 5.1% 2 3.4%

Defense 68 60 88.2% 5 7.4% 2 2.9% 1 1.5%

Treasury 47 41 87.2% 2 4.3% 4 8.5% 0 .0%

Air Force 50 45 90.0% 2 4.0% 3 6.0% 0 .0%

Agriculture 34 26 76.5% 7 20.6% 1 2.9% 0 .0%

Interior 41 35 85.4% 3 7.3% 3 7.3% 0 .0%

Transportation 29 28 96.6% 1 3.4% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Homeland Security 8 3 37.5% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 3 37.5%

Health & Human Serv 9 7 77.8% 0 .0% 2 22.2% 0 .0%

Social Security Adm 8 7 87.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 12.5%

Labor 6 4 66.7% 2 33.3% 0 .0% 0 .0%

General Service Adm 4 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

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

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

Housing & Urban Dev 6 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 .0% 0 .0%

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

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

FDIC 10 10 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corp for National & 

Community Service

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

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

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

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

Boundary & Water Com: 

US/MEX

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

Court Serv & Offend Super 

Agency For DC

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

National Credit Union Adm 2 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

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

Peace Corps 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%

TOTAL 1450 1158 79.9% 218 15.0% 42 2.9% 32 2.2%

Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.

* ADJUDICATED means adjudicated on the merits, i.e., not dismissed or settled.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 75 -

HEADQUARTERS CASE PROCESSING – FY 2003

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON APPEALS

DECIDED IN FY 2003 BY TYPE OF CASE

Type of Case Decided Dismissed Settled Denied

Denied

Reopened Granted

Adverse Action by

 Agency

469 18 3.8% 13 2.8% 380 81.0% 10 2.1% 48 10.2%

Termination of

 Probationers

39 2 5.1% 0 .0% 37 94.9% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Reduction in Force 38 3 7.9% 0 .0% 26 68.4% 1 2.6% 8 21.0%

Performance 19 0 .0% 1 5.3% 17 89.5% 0 .0 1 5.3%

Acceptable Level of

 Competence (WIGI)

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

Suitability 17 1 5.9% 1 5.9 10 58.8% 2 11.8% 3 17.6%

CSRS Retirement:

 Legal

86 5 5.8% 1 1.2% 60 69.8% 3 3.5% 17 19.8%

CSRS Retirement:

 Disability

32 1 3.1% 0 .0% 28 87.5% 0 .0% 3 9.4%

CSRS Retirement:

 Overpayment

20 2 10.0% 1 5.0% 12 60.0% 0 .0% 5 25.0%

FERS Retirement 58 6 10.3% 1 1.7% 43 74.1% 4 6.9% 4 6.9%

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

Individual Right of

 Action

80 6 7.5% 2 2.5% 55 68.8% 8 10.0% 9 11.2%

Other 109 8 7.3% 1 .9% 81 74.3% 6 5.5% 13 11.9%

Total 973 52 5.3% 21 2.2% 754 77.5% 35 3.6% 111 11.4%

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON APPEALS

DECIDED IN FY 2003

Total Number of Petitions for Review: 973

Denied but Reopened (35)

4%

Settled (21)

2%

Granted (111)

11%

Dismissed (52)

5%

Denied (754)

78%
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 76 -

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON APPEALS 

GRANTED IN FY 2003

Based on 111 Petitions for Review Granted

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISIONS ON APPEALS 

DENIED BUT REOPENED IN FY 2003

Initial Decision Affirmed 

(20)

57%

Initial Decision 

Reversed (3)

9%

Case Remanded (6)

17%

Other (6)

17%

Based on 35 Petitions for Review Denied But Reopened

Other (4)

4%

Initial Decision 

Affirmed (16)

14%

Initial Decision 

Reversed (28)

25% Case Remanded (63)

57%
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 77 -

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DECIDED IN FY 2003 BY AGENCY

Decided Dismissed Settled Denied

Denied 

Reopened Granted

US Postal Service 211 14 6.6% 1 .5% 161 76.3% 8 3.8% 27 12.8%

Office, Personnel 

Mgmt*

192 14 7.3% 2 1.0% 144 75.0% 4 2.1% 28 14.6%

Veterans Affairs 82 3 3.7% 3 3.7% 60 73.2% 7 8.5% 9 11.0%

Army 70 6 8.6% 1 1.4% 54 77.1% 2 2.9% 7 10.0%

Navy 61 1 1.6% 0 .0% 55 90.2% 2 3.3% 3 4.9%

Defense 54 2 3.7% 2 3.7% 44 81.5% 0 .0% 6 11.1%

Justice 51 5 9.8% 2 3.9% 35 68.6% 5 9.8% 4 7.8%

Treasury 49 3 6.1% 1 2.0% 38 77.6% 2 4.1% 5 10.2%

Air Force 30 0 .0% 1 3.3% 26 86.7% 0 .0% 3 10.0%

Transportation 27 1 3.7% 2 7.4% 21 77.8% 1 3.7% 2 7.4%

Interior 24 0 .0% 2 8.3% 19 79.2% 0 .0% 3 12.5%

Health & Human 

Serv

17 0 .0% 1 5.9% 10 58.8% 0 .0% 6 35.3%

Agriculture 15 1 6.7% 0 .0% 11 73.3% 1 6.7% 2 13.3%

Social Security 

Adm

14 0 .0% 1 7.1% 12 85.7% 0 .0% 1 7.1%

Commerce 11 0 .0% 0 .0% 10 90.9% 0 .0% 1 9.1%

General Service 

Adm

11 0 .0% 1 9.1% 9 81.8% 0 .0% 1 9.1%

Housing & Urban 

Dev

7 0 .0% 0 .0% 6 85.7% 0 .0% 1 14.3%

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

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

Boundary & Water 

Comm: US/MEX

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

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

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

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

Corp for National &

Community Serv

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

EPA 2 0 .0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 78 -

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DECIDED IN FY 2003 BY AGENCY

(continued)

Decided Dismissed Settled Denied

Denied 

Reopened Granted

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

GPO 2 1 50.0% 0 .0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Architect of the 

Capitol

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

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

Court Serv & 

Offend Super 

Agency for DC

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

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

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

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

Federal Housing 

Finance Bd

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

Federal Mediation 

& Conciliation Serv

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

Government of DC 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

National Credit 

Union Adm

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

NLRB 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%

Peace Corps 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

Railroad 

Retirement Bd

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

Smithsonian Inst 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%

TOTAL 973 52 5.3% 21 2.2% 754 77.5% 35 3.6% 111 11.4%

Percentages may not total 100 because of 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.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 79 -

SUMMARIES OF MERIT SYSTEMS STUDIES

ISSUED IN FY 2003

Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements

Federal agencies posted over 150,000 vacancy announcements in FY 2001, more than half of 

which were open to external applicants. Because many of the jobs were open to external 

applicants who are unfamiliar with the Government’s hiring system, it is important that vacancy 

announcements be an effective hiring tool. This report was based on a review of a random 

sample of 10,000 vacancy announcements posted on USAJOBS in FY 2001 and an assessment of

a random sample of 100 vacancy announcements posted on March 6 and 7, 2002. 

The MSPB review of the quality of vacancy announcements, unfortunately, shows that they 

are generally not good tools. They read poorly, are unattractive, and describe the jobs in a 

bureaucratic way, making it difficult to determine what the person would be doing in the job. 

Minimum qualifications are not specific, leaving applicants to wonder what exactly is required to 

qualify. Many vacancy announcements used language that is sometimes negative and 

threatening, or that can insult many applicants or deter them from applying. The MSPB review 

also showed that agencies impose burdensome requirements to apply and that their instructions 

on how to apply are vague. Announcements also provide poor service to applicants.

The most significant of the study’s findings is that many of the problems identified are 

actually symptoms of other, more complicated problems faced by the Government’s staffing 

system. The poor quality of vacancy announcements suggests that agencies lack a 

comprehensive recruiting and assessment strategy to ensure that they make good selections. The 

lack of such a strategy is compounded by agency human resources professionals’ lack of 

expertise, especially in recruiting. The report offers some recommendations that would help 

resolve these problems.

The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Structured interviews are twice as effective as unstructured interviews in predicting on-thejob performance. In a structured interview, all questions are related to the job to be filled, and 

the same questions are asked of each candidate for the job. Selecting the wrong person for a 

Federal job can cost from $5,000 for an entry-level employee to $300,000 for an employee who 

makes a $100,000 salary. According to an MSPB survey, 95 percent of Federal supervisors say 

they rely on interviews to a “great” or “moderate” extent when making a selection. 

Because selection interviews are widely used and influential, it is important that they be used 

effectively. The report recommended that agencies use structured interviews to assess candidates 

for Federal jobs. Agencies should decide in advance what purpose an interview is to serve and 

then design and conduct the interview accordingly. The report also recommended that agencies 

invest the resources needed to add structure to their selection interviews and that they evaluate 

their interview practices for effectiveness and possible improvement.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 80 -

The Federal Workforce for the 21st Century: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2000

This report summarized the views of Federal employees before 9/11 and noted that delayed 

retirements, an improving economy, and increases in job opportunities may exacerbate skill gaps 

already evident as a result of the downsizing in the 1990s. While employees still believe they 

and their work units are highly productive, overall job satisfaction appears to be slipping and 

frustrations are evident in many of their survey responses. For example, respondents planning to 

retire in the coming year said that excessive job stress was the most important work-related

factor in their decision to retire.

In other areas, employees expressed concerns about some aspects of their supervision and 

reported experiencing negative personnel management practices. Analyses show that views of 

satisfied employees differ markedly from those of dissatisfied employees and that perceptions of 

discrimination vary notably by race and national origin. 

The report made a number of recommendations for agencies to address the issues uncovered. 

Agencies should ensure that managers closely monitor and address any skill imbalances in their 

strategic plans, that supervisors have both the ability and the desire to manage effectively and 

fairly, and that their organizations foster a culture where poor performance is dealt with and 

where employees can work freely and without fear of reprisal for exercising their appeal rights or 

reporting waste, fraud or abuse. 

Issues of Merit Newsletter

Through the quarterly newsletter Issues of Merit, the MSPB publicizes findings from current 

studies on a wide range of human capital issues. In FY 2003, newsletter topics included:

 Holistic commentary on issues of broad applicability, such as understanding the merit 

principles as the Government’s core values, the need to take organizational culture seriously, 

and reflection on the Civil Service Reform Act’s 25th anniversary;

 Advocacy on specific reform efforts, such as support for Recruitment One-Stop, the 

questionable wisdom of changing the appeal process to fix the problem of poor performers, 

and the arrival of category rating;

 Practical advice for human resources specialists and managers, such as how to fire poor 

performers, how to use competencies competently, how to include multiple hurdles to make 

better selection decisions, and how to write better vacancy announcements;

 Analysis of MSPB and other research, such as knowing more about the Contracting Officers

Representatives (CORs) who provide day-to-day oversight of Government contracts, as well 

as understanding human resources reforms in the states and what it means for the Federal 

Government; and
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 81 -

 Informational articles to help readers understand critical topics, such as MSPB appeals, pay 

flexibilities available under Title 5, and what pay banding looks like in the Federal 

Government.
MSPB Performance & Accountability Report: FY 2003

- 82 -

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 e-mail 

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.