UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

SUSAN YEUNG,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-0752-19-0654-I-1

DATE: April 26, 2023

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Susan Yeung, Debary, Florida, pro se.

Katie A. Chillemi, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member2

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which 

dismissed her reduction-in-pay appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons 

 

1A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).

2 Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three-member Board 

completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
2

discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, REVERSE the 

initial decision, and REVERSE the appellant’s reduction in pay. 

BACKGROUD

¶2 The appellant was a GS-13, step 2 Program Analyst for the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Kennedy Space Center, with a salary of 

$90,598. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 51. The appellant applied for a 

GS-11 Auditor position with the Department of Homeland Security, the 

respondent agency in this appeal. Id. at 40, 47. The full promotion potential for 

the position was GS-13. Id. at 47. The agency selected the appellant off of a 

certificate, and on April 30, 2018, it extended her a tentative job offer at GS-11, 

step 10. Id. at 39. The appellant accepted, and on July 8, 2018, she transferred to 

the GS-11, step 10 Auditor position, with a salary of $79,586. Id. at 35-38. 

Effective January 9, 2019, the appellant’s salary was adjusted upwards to 

$80,912, pursuant to government-wide salary increases under Executive Order 

No. 13,866, 84 Fed. Reg. 12853 (Mar. 28, 2019). Id. at 31. 

¶3 As the appellant approached 52 weeks in her Auditor position, and under 

5 C.F.R. § 300.604(a) became eligible for a career ladder advancement to GS-12, 

the agency began reviewing her file to determine what the appropriate step would 

be upon promotion. Id. at 29. The agency then determined that it had erred in 

transferring the appellant in as a GS-11, step 10 and should instead have 

transferred her in as a GS-11, step 9. Id. The agency reasoned that transferring 

the appellant in at step 10 had been contrary to its Policy Pay Setting Guidance, 

which provides that, when an employee is transferred to a position at a lower 

grade, her pay must be set so that her pay upon promotion will not exceed her pay 

prior to the transfer. Id. at 16, 25, 58. Specifically, the agency determined that, 

under 5 U.S.C. § 5334(b), the appellant’s advancement to GS-12 would be at 

step 6, and her expected advancement to GS-13 the following year would have to 

be at step 3, which would exceed her rate of pay prior to transfer. Id. at 10. The
3

agency therefore retroactively adjusted the appellant’s pay to reflect that she had 

entered on duty as a GS-11, step 9, at $77,545 per year, and it notified her that 

she had been overpaid $1,041.14 in salary, which the agency intended to collect 

through deductions to her pay. IAF, Tab 1 at 7-15. The appellant filed a Board 

appeal and requested a hearing, challenging the reduction in pay. IAF, Tab 1 

at 2-3, 5.

¶4 The administrative judge issued an acknowledgment order, notifying the 

parties that the appellant had made a prima facie showing of Board jurisdiction 

under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 by establishing that her basic pay had been reduced. 

IAF, Tab 2 at 2. She ordered the agency to respond to the acknowledgment order 

with evidence and argument showing that the reduction in pay constituted the 

correction of a pay-setting error. Id. After the agency responded, the 

administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction without a hearing. IAF, Tab 5, Initial Decision (ID). She agreed 

with the agency that the appellant’s career ladder advancement to GS-13 from a 

baseline of GS-11, step 10 would place her at GS-13, step 3, in violation of 

5 C.F.R. § 532.405, and accordingly, the agency had erred in transferring the 

appellant in at the step 10 level. ID at 3-4.

¶5 The appellant has filed a petition for review, disputing the administrative 

judge’s application of the law. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The

agency has filed a response to the petition, and the appellant has filed a reply to 

the agency’s response. PFR File, Tabs 3-4. During the pendency of the petition 

for review, the Office of the Clerk of the Board issued a show cause order, 

notifying the agency that its Policy Pay Setting Guidance may not have the force 

and effect of law such that the correction of a pay-setting error in violation of that 

guidance would be excluded from the Board’s jurisdiction. PFR File, Tab 5. The 

order informed the agency of the applicable standard and directed it to file 

evidence and argument on the issue. Id. The agency responded. PFR File, 

Tab 6.
4

ANALYSIS

¶6 The Board has jurisdiction to review an appeal of a reduction in grade or 

pay. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512, 7513(d). The general rule is that a reduction in an 

employee’s rate of basic pay is appealable to the Board. See 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 7511(a)(4), 7512(4), 7513(d). However, there is an exception to this rule for 

cases in which an agency reduces an employee’s basic pay “from a rate that is 

contrary to law or regulation.” 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(b)(15). Such an action is not 

appealable to the Board. 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(b)(15); see Hall v. Department of 

the Navy, 73 M.S.P.R. 251, 254 (1997); Warren v. Department of Transportation, 

19 M.S.P.R. 560, 565 (1984).

¶7 When an agency contends that it reduced an employee’s pay to correct what 

it believes was an error in setting pay, then the agency bears the burden of 

showing that it set the employee’s pay at a rate contrary to law or regulation. 

Lomax v. Department of Defense, 78 M.S.P.R. 553, 559-60 (1998). The Board 

has held that an employee should not be forced to prove that the agency did not 

make an error in setting her pay because the agency is in a much better position to 

know why it originally set the employee’s pay as it did and what later led it to 

conclude that it made an error. Vega v. U.S. Postal Service, 108 M.S.P.R. 221, 

¶ 11 (2008).

¶8 As noted above, the alleged pay-setting error in this case was detected when 

the agency projected the appellant’s expected career ladder advancement to the 

full promotion potential of her position. The agency made its projection in 

accordance with the two-step promotion rule of 5 U.S.C. § 5334(b). That

subsection provides in relevant part as follows: 

An employee who is promoted or transferred to a position in a higher 

grade is entitled to basic pay at the lowest rate of the higher grade 

which exceeds his existing rate of basic pay by not less than two 

step-increases of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred.

5 U.S.C. § 5334(b). We agree with the agency, and the appellant does not 

dispute, that under this rule the appellant’s career ladder advancement would have 
5

been from GS-11, step 10 to GS-12, step 5 and then to GS-13, step 3. IAF, Tab 4 

at 11-12, 52. We also agree with the agency, and the appellant does not dispute, 

that the appellant’s rate of pay at GS-13, step 3 would exceed her rate of pay 

prior to transfer from her former GS-13, step 2 position. Id. at 11, 51-52, 58. 

Therefore, based on this projected career ladder advancement, the appellant’s 

transfer in at GS-11, step 10 was contrary to the agency’s Policy Pay Setting 

Guidance, which provides in relevant part as follows:

[P]ay for conversions or transfers to positions at a lower grade will 

be set at a step of the lower grade which, upon re-promotion, will not 

place the employee in a rate exceeding that previously held in the 

higher grade.

Id. at 58.

¶9 The agency argued below that the applicable provision of its Policy Pay 

Setting Guidance was intended to ensure compliance with 5 C.F.R. 

§ 532.405(a)(1), which provides that, when an employee is transferred, “the 

agency may fix the pay at any rate of the new grade which does not exceed the 

employee’s highest previous rate.” IAF, Tab 4 at 5, 9. However, we agree with 

the appellant that 5 C.F.R. § 532.405(a)(1) does not apply to her because she is 

not a prevailing rate employee. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5; see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 5342(a)(2); 5 C.F.R. §§ 532.101, .103. Moreover, even if 5 C.F.R. 

§ 532.405(a)(1) did apply to the appellant, we find that it would not have 

prevented the agency from fixing her pay at GS-11, step 10. That regulation 

pertains to fixing the rate of pay “when an employee is reemployed, reassigned, 

transferred, promoted, or changed to a lower grade.” 5 C.F.R. § 532.405(a)(1). It 

says nothing about an employee’s pay upon repromotion.

¶10 The agency also argues that its Policy Pay Setting Guidance was intended to 

ensure compliance with the maximum payable rate rule of 5 C.F.R. 

§ 531.221(a)(1)-(2). PFR File, Tab 6 at 5. This section provides a method “to 

determine an employee’s payable rate of basic pay under the GS pay system at a 

rate higher than the otherwise applicable rate upon reemployment, transfer, 
6

reassignment, promotion, demotion, [or] change in type of appointment . . . .” 

5 C.F.R. § 531.221(a)(1). Again, this section says nothing about an employee’s 

pay upon repromotion.

¶11 In response to the Board’s show cause order, the agency states that it is not 

contending that its Policy Pay Setting Guidance in and of itself is entitled to the 

force and effect of law. PFR File, Tab 6 at 4. Rather, the “Pay Setting Guidance 

pertaining to conversion or transfer to a lower grade is a direct application of 

existing Federal regulations and codes contained in 5 C.F.R. § 531, Subpart B, 

5 C.F.R. § 532, Subpart D and 5 U.S.C. § 5334.” Id. However, as explained 

above, this is not accurate. To the extent that these provisions of law even apply 

to the appellant, they do nothing to limit her rate of pay upon transfer based on 

her expected future repromotion. These limits are found only within the agency’s 

Policy Pay Setting Guidance, which the agency has not shown to have the force 

and effect of law under Hamlet v. United States, 63 F.3d 1097, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 

1995). Because the agency concedes that its Policy Pay Setting Guidance is not a 

“law or regulation” within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(b)(15), we find that 

it has failed to meet its burden to show that it reduced the appellant’s pay from a 

rate contrary to law or regulation. Accordingly, we find that the action under 

appeal does not fall under 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(b)(15) and that it is a “reduction in 

pay” within the Board’s chapter 75 jurisdiction. See Vega, 108 M.S.P.R. 221, 

¶ 18; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512(4), 7513(d).

¶12 It is undisputed that the agency reduced the appellant’s pay without 

affording her prior notice and an opportunity to respond as required by 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7513(b) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the 

Constitution. IAF, Tab 4 at 26. Therefore, the agency violated the appellant’s 

right to due process, and the appellant’s reduction in pay must be reversed. See

Simmons v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 120 M.S.P.R. 489, 

¶ 8 (2014); Stephen v. Department of the Air Force, 47 M.S.P.R. 672, 680-81 

(1991).
7

ORDER

¶13 We ORDER the agency to cancel the appellant’s reduction in pay, restore 

her to the position of GS-11, step 10 Auditor effective July 8, 2018, and refund to 

the appellant any monies that it has collected from her pursuant to its 

reduction-in-pay action. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 

730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days 

after the date of this decision.

¶14 We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back 

pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Perso nnel 

Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this 

decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s 

efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to 

provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the 

Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due, 

and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed 

amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. 

¶15 We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing 

when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has 

taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask 

the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b). 

¶16 No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully 

carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement 

with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant 

believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition 

should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not 

fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of 

any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

¶17 For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance 

Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and 
8

Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation 

necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision 

are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all 

documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the 

Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be 

made within the 60-day period set forth above.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney 

fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of 

the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The 

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If 

you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees 

and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. 

You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued 

the initial decision on your appeal.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS3

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By 

statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such 

review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). 

Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit 

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most 

appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a 

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their 

jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should 

 

3

Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated 

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the 

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
9

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all 

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time 

limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review 

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions 

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you 

should contact that forum for more information. 

(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking 

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court 

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). 

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the 

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular 

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is 

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at 

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation 

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The 

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that 

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 
10

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of 

discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you 

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action 

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain 

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination 

claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you 

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a 

representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before 

you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days

after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of 

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling 

condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and 

to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective 

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding 

all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the 

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, 

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file 

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision. 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the 

address of the EEOC is: 
11

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or 

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised 

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or 

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). 

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s 

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 

2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), 

(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of 

competent jurisdiction.4 The court of appeals must receive your petition for 

review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1)(B). 

 

4

The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain 

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on 

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on 

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of 

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195, 

132 Stat. 1510. 
12

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the 

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular 

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is 

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at 

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation 

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The 

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that 

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their 

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

 

 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

/s/ for

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board
DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE

Civilian Pay Operations

DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST

The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay 

pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following 

checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may 

substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at: 

https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx. 

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by 

vendor pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay. 

☐ 1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the 

specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments. 

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket 

comments as to why the documentation is not applicable: 

☐ 2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order. 

☐ 3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”. 

☐ 4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s 

until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.*** 

☐ 5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until 

notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.*** 

☐ 6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.). 

☐ 7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the employee 

in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment. 

Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc. Also, 

include record of any unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation, 

CSRS/FERS retirement annuity payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums, 

or severance pay received by the employee upon separation. 

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority 

under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment 

they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The 

annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave 

ceiling will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES

Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process 

payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts. 

1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information 

describing what to do in accordance with decision. 

2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration: 

a. Employee name and social security number. 

b. Detailed explanation of request. 

c. Valid agency accounting. 

d. Authorized signature (Table 63). 

e. If interest is to be included. 

f. Check mailing address. 

g. Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached. 

h. Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be 

collected (if applicable). 

Attachments to AD-343 

1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday 

Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable). 

2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts. 

3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency. 

4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to 

return monies. 

5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)

6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the 

type of leave to be charged and number of hours. 

7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave 

to be paid. 

NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and 

required data in 1-7 above. 

The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum 

Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.) 

a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.

b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided. 

c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable. 

If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s 

Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.