U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Congressional

Budget

Justification

FY 2016

Prepared for 

Committee on Appropriations

February 2015
Table of Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 

External Events impacting MSPB operations......................................................................................................... 1 

FY 2016 Request................................................................................................................4 

Appropriation Language................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Summary of FY 2016 Costs.......................................................................................................................................... 4 

Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4 

FY 2016 request by Object Class................................................................................................................................ 5 

Board Organization......................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Request for additional FTE.......................................................................................................................................... 9 

Schedule O Object Classification...........................................................................................................................15

Schedule Q Employment Summary......................................................................................................................16

About MSPB..................................................................................................................................................................16

Adjudication...................................................................................................................................................................16

Mediation Appeals Program ......................................................................................................................................17

Merit Systems Studies and OPM Oversight.........................................................................................................18

Management Support ..................................................................................................................................................20

Information Technology ............................................................................................................................................20

Human Resources .......................................................................................................................................................20

Financial Management.................................................................................................................................................21

Equal Employment Opportunity............................................................................................................................. 21 

Organization Chart........................................................................................................................................................ 22 
1

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Performance Budget Justification for Fiscal Year2016

Introduction

Over the last two fiscal years (FY) the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) has 

been managing a case load of historic proportions. This is due to external factors outside of MSPB’s 

control that we believe will likely continue into FY 2016 and beyond. As a result, the Board is 

submitting its FY2016 Performance Budget Justification requesting $49,016,000 in appropriated 

funds and $2,579,000 in reimbursements from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust 

Fund.

A highly qualified Federal workforce managed under the Merit System Principles (MSPs) is critical 

to ensuring effective and efficient Federal agency performance and service to the public. In fact, the 

MSPs are in essence good management practices and as such, the most fundamental function of the 

MSPB is to ensure that these good management practices are employed in the management of the 

Federal workforce. The MSPs help ensure that the Federal Government is able to recruit, select, 

develop, and maintain a high quality workforce and thereby reduce staffing costs and improve 

organizational results that serve the public. A fully funded, well-run Board is critical to protecting 

the Federal merit systems, ensuring due process, promoting Government wide MSPs, and 

preventing Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs).

External Events Impacting MSPB Operations

Government-Wide Sequestration and Resulting Appeals Filed at MSPB

As described below, a number of significant external events have impacted MSPB and are likely to 

continue to affect MSPB’s mission to protect the Federal merit systems through FY 2016 and 

should be considered as Congress determines funding levels for the MSPB in FY 2016. At MSPB, 

we recognize the financial challenges facing our nation with increasing pressure to cut fiscal 

spending and to reduce the size of the Federal Government. However, our agency has been 

impacted in a unique way. On March 1, 2013, Government-wide “sequestration” was implemented 

and MSPB sustained a decrease of over $2 million from its appropriation. As a result of 

sequestration, a number of Federal agencies furloughed staff, including the Department of Defense. 

Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees were furloughed, and as expected, tens of thousands

of those employees exercised their statutory right1

to appeal their furloughs to the MSPB, resulting in 

historical increases in the number of furlough appeals filed. In fact, more than 32,400 furlough 

appeals were filed with MSPB.2

As of December 2014, MSPB had approximately 19,700 initial appeals, of which 17,500 are furlough 

appeals, pending. Throughout FY 2015, we will be receiving new initial appeals that are added to our 

existing caseload that must be processed. Simply processing these appeals and preparing to 

 

1 Under 5 U.S.C. § 7512, a “furlough of 30 days or less” is an adverse action for which a covered 

employee is entitled to appeal to MSPB. 

2 Under the law, each appellant has a statutory right to a hearing, meaning that every case filed must 

be processed and adjudicated. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1)
2

adjudicate them has been an overwhelming endeavor and has affected all offices of the agency. 

Congress recognized the need for additional resources to address the historical number of furlough

appeals, thereby increasing our FY 2014 funding by $2.6 million more than the amount requested in 

the President’s FY 2014 budget. This permitted MSPB to begin hiring additional staff to fill longstanding vacancies and address the historic inventory of initial appeals. 

While we expect to make significant progress in processing the inventory of appeals in FY 2015, it is 

likely we will begin FY 2016 with a significant inventory of appeals in our regional offices and and 

petitions for review (PFR) at headquarters in Washington, D.C. filed in FY 2015. As we noted in 

our FY 2015 By-pass justification to Congress, the only historical comparator for this volume of 

work at our agency are the Air Traffic Controller terminations that occurred in 1981. At that time, 

approximately 11,000 appeals were filed at the Board by terminated controllers. We would note, 

however, that at that time, MSPB had about twice the number of FTE than our current staffing 

level. Additionally, unlike the current furlough appeals, which are spread across various agencies 

Government-wide, all 11,000 appeals came from a single agency, the Federal Aviation 

Administration, and covered a uniform adverse action (termination).

Appeals in an Era of Declining Agency Budgets and Expected Retirements

An increase of furlough or RIF appeals could occur in FY 2016 if agencies continue to be faced with 

declining budgets – via sequestration or otherwise. Based on the number of furlough appeals 

currently in the MSPB regional offices, our PFR receipts at the full Board in headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. will likely be at historic levels in FY 2015 and beyond. As of January 8, 2015, 

headquarters has received approximately 1,000 PFRs in furlough appeals, almost all of which were 

filed at the end of FY 2014 and beginning of FY 2015. In addition, if agencies continue to furlough 

their employees during FY 2016 and beyond due to additional budget cuts, or begin to reduce 

staffing levels through reductions in force (RIFs), PFR receipts would likely remain at historic levels

for years to come. 

MSPB headquarters received an average of 1,011 PFR cases per fiscal year from FY 2009 through 

the end of FY 2014. However, as noted in the MSPB’s FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and 

FY 2014 (Final) and FY 2015 (Proposed) Plan, a number of significant external trends are likely to 

increase PFRs FY 2015 and FY 2016. Sequestration required hundreds of thousands of Federal 

employees to be furloughed in FY 2013. Due to the likelihood that a majority of the furlough PFRs

will be filed in FY 2015 – after decisions by MSPB administrative judges in our regional offices – we 

anticipate significantly higher than average receipts that fiscal year. Although sequestration is not 

expected to affect agencies in FY 2015, over the longer term, Federal budgets are expected to 

decrease. A consequence of budget reductions will likely include increased use of RIFs by agencies,

which will result in Federal employees losing their jobs. In that circumstance, Federal employees 

would likely appeal those adverse actions to MSPB, as is their statutory right.

Changes to the Law and Resulting Impact on the MSPB

Significant changes in the law have had and will continue to have a direct impact on case processing. 

We anticipate that the recently passed Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 will 

increase our workload, although we do not yet know how much of an increase we will see. The 

most significant aspect of that legislation, however, is that it requires MSPB to devote resources to

appeals filed under this law, to the detriment of all other appeals, since appeals filed under this law
3

must be decided within 21 days of the filing date. This is less than 20% of the already expeditious 

120-day time goal the Board has been operating under for many years. Thus, resources will need to 

be diverted from other categories of ongoing cases that will lead to delays in processing. Moreover, 

we anticipate that Congress will consider expanding this law to other Federal agencies or categories 

of Federal employees. 

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) will likely increase the number of 

whistleblower cases that will proceed to a hearing. It also provides additional rights to 

whistleblowers and those who engage in other protected activity in the Federal Government by 

expanding the scope of protected disclosures as well as MSPB’s whistleblower jurisdiction and 

options for granting corrective action, all of which make adjudication of WPEA cases far more 

complex and time-consuming. The additional corrective action possibilities will also likely lead to 

more addendum appeals being filed as appellants seek compensatory damages and attorney fees. 

The law also permits review of MSPB decisions by multiple Federal Courts of Appeals, thereby 

leading to the likelihood of inconsistent precedent that could further complicate adjudication. 

Finally, the WPEA also requires MSPB to track and report more detailed information about 

whistleblowing cases in its performance reports, which requires more resources.

Long Term Impacts From the Influx of Appeals on MSPB 

There are also longer-term impacts from the massive influx of appeals. MSPB case processing

systems and infrastructure need to be upgraded to handle the additional volume of electronically 

filed appeals and pleadings. In support of MSPB's strategic objective on electronic adjudication (eadjudication) and the Presidential Memorandum on Managing Government Records, MSPB must 

streamline case processing efficiencies in its adjudication mission and convert from a paper-based 

case file system to an electronic case (e-case) file system. With the financial resources we are 

requesting in our justification, we intend to review, evaluate, and recommend workflows and 

systems to support MSPB's migration to e-case files through the life cycle of an appeal. MSPB will 

seek available products, solutions, and ancillary services to convert to 100% electronic case 

processing to substantially improve the delivery and efficiency of our adjudication services. While 

some of the systems and components to support an e-case processing environment already exist at 

MSPB, we need to identify, procure, and implement additional systems, components, and processes, 

e.g., a certified Electronic Records Management System, and integrate them with existing systems to 

convert to a 100% e-adjudication process, develop and document that process and related 

procedures, and to provide necessary training to MSPB staff at the headquarters, and our regional 

and field offices.

MSPB's data center is currently located in the headquarters building in Washington, DC, a 

commercial building without sufficient infrastructure for a data center. We have encountered a 

number of power and air conditioning issues in the past, causing unnecessary downtime and making 

MSPB systems unavailable to MSPB customers and employees. MSPB is seeking to

migrate/outsource its computer data center in FY 2016. A true data center hosted offsite will 

provide more capacity, scalability, reliability, and the capability for disaster recovery. 
4

FY 2016 Budget Request

Appropriation Language 

For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board pursuant 

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and the Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5509 note), as amended, including services as authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109, rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, hire of 

passenger motor vehicles, direct procurement of survey printing, and not to exceed $2,000 for 

official reception and representation expenses, $49,016,000,to remain available until September 30, 

2017, together with not to exceed $2,579,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017, for 

administrative expenses to adjudicate retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service 

Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts to be determined by the Merit Systems Protection 

Board.

Summary of FY 2016 Costs

The MSPB requests $49,016,000 in general funds in FY 2016 to provide for salaries and related 

expenses and to ensure that the agency continues to meet its strategic and annual performance goals. 

The agency also requests a transfer of $2,579,000 from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 

Fund to cover personnel compensation and benefit costs and other operating expenses associated 

with adjudicating retirement appeals. The MSPB has authority to adjudicate appeals from a final 

administrative action or order affecting the rights or interests of an individual under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8347(d) (the Civil Service Retirement System) and 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e) (the Federal Employees’ 

Retirement System). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8348(a)(3), the Fund is made available, subject to such 

annual limitation as Congress may prescribe, for any expenses incurred by the MSPB in the 

administration of such appeals. The total FY 2016 request of $51,595,000 will fund 255 full-time

equivalent work-years of effort.

Strategic Goals

Our FY 2016 Congressional Budget Justification is structured on the basis of the MSPB FY 2014– 

FY 2018 Strategic Plan. The agency’s performance goals cover the critical components of two 

strategic goals, and our performance measures support MSPB’s ability to manage and report 

performance over time. The strategic goals and objectives of our Strategic Plan are discussed in our 

Annual Performance Plan and are as follows: 

Strategic Goal 1: Serve the public interest by protecting Merit System Principles and 

safeguarding the civil service from Prohibited Personnel Practices. 
5

Strategic Objectives: 

1A: Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of appeals supported by fair and efficient 

adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. 

1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions. 

1C: Conduct objective, timely studies of the Federal merit systems and human capital management 

issues. 

1D: Review and act upon the rules, regulations, and significant actions of the Office of Personnel 

Management, as appropriate. 

Strategic Goal 2: Advance the public interest through education and promotion of stronger 

merit systems, adherence to Merit System Principles, and prevention of Prohibited 

Personnel Practices. 

Strategic Objectives: 

2A: Inform, promote, and/or encourage actions by policy-makers, as appropriate, that strengthen 

Federal merit systems laws and regulations. 

2B: Support and improve the practice of merit, adherence to MSPs, and prevention of PPPs in the 

workplace through outreach. 

2C: Advance the understanding of the concepts of merit, MSPs, and PPPs through the use of 

educational standards, materials, and guidance established by MSPB.

FY 2016 request by Object Class

The MSPB’s FY 2016 budget request of $51,595,000 reflects an increase of $ 6,510,000 from our

FY 2015 enacted level of $45,085,000. With this level of funding, MSPB expects to support a 

staffing level of 255 FTE, to continue to maintain quality services in support of the agency functions 

and meet the goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan. Our request includes inflationary 

adjustments common to most Federal agencies. With the requested amount, MSPB is prepared to 

undertake mission critical tasks in FY 2016 that will allow MSPB to achieve its strategic goals in an 

efficient and cost-effective manner. 

A discussion of our increases over the FY 2015 enacted level follows:
6

Personnel Compensation & Benefits – an increase of $4,973,000

MOC Description

FY 2015

Enacted

(000)

FY 2016 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2015

(000)

11 Personnel 

Compensation $26,420 $30,493 $4,073

12 Benefits $6,619 $7,519 $900

Approximately 79% of the agency’s funding is for personnel compensation and benefit costs, which 

make up the largest amount of our budget submission. Thus, any reduction in resources affects our 

ability to hire and maintain a highly qualified staff at our requested FTE level. Our request assumes 

our FTE will be increased to 255 and assumes a 1.3% pay raise inFY 2016.

Our ability to maintain adequate staffing levels was adversely impacted before the sequester cuts. 

Moreover, the sequester cut of $2 million made it much more difficult to maintain staffing levels. In 

FY 2014, Congress appropriated additional resources for MSPB to address the flood of furlough 

appeals as a result of the sequester cuts. Thus, MSPB has been able to hire additional staff and fill 

long-standing vacancies to address the backlog of initial appeal cases. 

Although we are striving to meet our Performance Goals, any reductions of funding from current 

enacted levels will make it difficult for the agency to meetthe demands of a workload increase. This 

is due to the inventory of cases we currently have as well as an increase in cases that can be expected 

once sequester cuts resume in FY 2016 and agenies take personnel actions (e.g., furloughs and RIFs) 

to address those cuts. 

Travel& Transportation of Persons – an increase of $31,000

MOC Description

FY 

2015Enacted

(000) 

FY 2016

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 

2015

(000)

21 Travel &Transportation of 

Persons $449 $480 $31

Management will continue to control travel costs although it is likely the MSPB case load will 

increase for reasons already discussed above. To meet our mission, Administrative Judges 

(AJs) must frequently travel to hearing sites located a considerable distance from the various 

regional offices. Additionally, as a result of the WPEA, which strips the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. of exclusive jurisdiction over appeals
7

filed by whistleblowers, MSPB attorneys may be required to travel to various Federal courts 

of appeals to represent the agency – something that was not required previously. While we 

are making increasing use of video conferencing for hearings, we have little control over the 

number of hearings that might require travel.

Transportation of Things – an increase of $10,000

MOC Description

FY 

2015Enacted

(000) 

FY 2016

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 

2015

(000)

22 Transportation of Things $75 $85 $10

This category covers freight related costs and various courier services.

Rent, Communications, & Utilities – an increase of $284,000

MOC Description

FY 

2015Enacted

(000) 

FY 2016

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2015

(000)

23 Rent, Communications & 

Utilities $4,542 $4,826 $284

The agency makes rental payments to the General Services Administrations (GSA) for office space 

in our Washington Headquarters as well as all of our regional and field offices. The balance of our 

request for this object class will be for network contract services, the Internet, and mandated 

Managed Trusted Internet Protocol services as well as other telecommunication services such as 

Voice Over Internet protocol and video conferencing. Due to the increase in case processing 

volume, MSPB needs to increase its internet bandwidth and upgrade its network.

Printing – an increase of $10,000

MOC Description

FY 

2015Enacted

(000)

FY 2016

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 

2015

(000)

24 Printing $190 $200 $10
8

The Government Printing Office (GPO) has two printing programs (printing of case files and our 

Issues of Merit newsletter) specifically designed for MSPB.

Other Contractual Services – an increase of $908,000

MOC Description

FY 

2015Enacted

(000) 

FY 2016

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2015

(000)

25 Other Contractual Services $3,381 $4,289 $908

This object class includes the Agency’s Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSA) with the Treasury 

Department’s Bureau of Public Debt (BPD) for accounting, purchasing, and travel-related services 

and our RSA with the Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service

(APHIS) for personnel services. Since FY 2013, the cost for BPD services has increased by nearly 

23% and the cost for APHIS services have risen by 27% for the same period.

Other RSA’s included in this object class fund are Administrative Law Judges (agreements with the 

U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Trade Commission), as 

well as agreements with the National Archives and Records Administration for records management 

storage. This category includes court reporting services, employee training, information technology 

hardware and software maintenance renewals, license renewals for software, and the operation and 

maintenance of other equipment. 

For FY 2016, MSPB is requesting $500,000 to begin work on an system for electronic adjudication– 

MSPB will seek available products, solutions, and ancillary services to convert to 100% electronic 

case processing to substantially improve the delivery and efficiency of our adjudication services. 

Additionally, MSPB is requesting $500,000 to invest in a data center migration/outsourcing project. 

A true data center hosted offsite will provide more capacity, scalability, and the capability for disaster 

recovery. We plan to do develop an implementation plan and conduct proof of concept test for this 

project during FY 2015.

Supplies & Materials – an increase of $30,000

MOC Description

FY 

2015Enacted

(000) 

FY 2016

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 

2015

(000)

26 Supplies & Materials $170 $200 $30

Assuming adverse actions resume in FY 2016, expenditures for supplies and materials are expected 

increase.
9

Equipment – an increase of $30,000

MOC Description

FY 

2015Enacted

(000) 

FY 2016

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 

2015

(000)

 

31 Equipment $894 $924 $30

Most of our equipment expenditures will be for replacing items due to breakdowns as well as 

equipment that has exceeded its useful life such as laptops, copiers, printers, scanners, and video 

teleconferencing equipment. Most of laptops and printers will be at least 5 years old by FY 2016 

and will need to be replaced. Additionally, there are instances, in which minor construction projects, 

which include enhancements to equipment must be funded as we maintain the facilities at our 

headquarters and regional offices. MSPB bears the cost of such projects.

Board Organization

The Board Members are the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Board Member. Board Members are 

appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve overlapping, non-renewable

7-year terms. No more than two of the three Board Members can be from the same political party. 

The Board Members adjudicate cases brought to the Board. The Chairman, by statute, is the chief 

executive and administrative officer of MSPB. The Office Directors report to the Chairman through 

the Executive Director.

The agency has its headquarters in Washington, DC with six regional and two field offices located 

throughout the United States. The agency is currently funded at 226 Full-time Equivalents (FTEs) to 

conduct and support its statutory duties. 

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FTE

If reductions in budgetary resources resume, our ability to meet our performance goals and targets

will be impacted, and the timely processing of appeals will likely be delayed. Additionally, the agency 

has recently experienced several retirements and can expect more, as approximately a quarter of

our employees are eligible to retire within the next two years, including about a third of our 

AJ’s.

As noted, MSPB requests to be funded at 255 FTE in FY 2016, an increase of 29 FTEs from our 

present FTE level of 226. With the expected resumption of cuts in FY 2016, MSPB expects its 

caseload to increase. 

The discussion that follows identifies the additional FTE requested for the respective offices. Some 

of the additional FTE requested in this submission were identified in our FY 2015 By-Pass request 

to Congress. 
10

Office of Appeals Counsel(OAC) – Additional FTE Requested: 5

The Office of Appeals Counsel (OAC) OAC is requesting 5 additional FTE (3non-supervisory 

attorneys, 1 administrative support specialist, and 1 manager). OAC conducts legal research and 

prepares proposed decisions for the Board for cases in which a party files a PFR of an initial 

decision issued by an AJ and in most other cases decided by the Board. The office prepares 

proposed decisions on interlocutory appeals of rulings made by AJs, makes recommendations on 

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

to the Board on legal issues.

OAC is central to the MSPB core mission of adjudicating disputes between employees and executive 

branch agencies that arise under the civil service laws. To be prepared to face these challenges while 

maintaining the balance between high quality and timely decisions, it will be crucial to ensure that 

there is a sufficient number of OAC adjudication staff who have the necessary competencies, 

knowledge, and training to perform their work efficiently. OAC is requesting 3 additional nonsupervisory attorneys, bringing the total to 29.

 

An appropriate number of administrative support personnel for 29 non-supervisory attorneys is 4 

employees in a mix of positions (paralegals, administrative officer, case tracker/legal assistant). 

Administrative support personnel handle crucial tasks such as proofreading and cite-checking 

decisions intended for publication as precedent, and processing incoming cases for the Office of the 

Clerk of the Board and the outgoing cases to the Board offices. A ratio of 1 to 7.25administrative to 

professional personnel is appropriate for these tasks. OAC currently has 3 employees in 

administrative positions and is requesting 1 additional FTE for an administrative support specialist 

position.

OAC needs 2 managers, a Director and a Deputy Director, to oversee day-to-day operations, to 

conduct long-range planning, and to be accountable for the overall results of the office. Currently, 

OAC does not have a Deputy. 

 

Office of the General Counsel (OGC) – Additional FTE requested: 2

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) serves as legal counsel to MSPB, advises the Board 

and MSPB offices on a wide range of legal matters arising from day-to-day operations. The office 

represents MSPB in litigation; coordinates the review of OPM rules and regulations; prepares 

proposed decisions for the Board to enforce a final MSPB decision or order, in response to requests 

to review OPM regulations, and for other assigned cases; conducts the agency’s PFR settlement 

program; and coordinates the agency’s legislative policy and congressional relations functions. The 

office drafts regulations, conducts MSPB’s ethics program, performs the Inspector General 

function, and plans and directs audits and investigations. 

OGC is requesting 2 additional FTE. Fully funding our FY 2016 request would permit OGC to fill 

current vacancies and hire two additional FTE (attorneys at the GS-13/14/15 level). The increase in 

staffing should ensure the important roles the OGC has in the day-to-day operations of MSPB are 

being met. The increase in FTE would enhance the performance of the office, permitting it to 

meet its duties to the agency in litigation; reviewing and responding to petitions for enforcement; 

coordinating the agency’s legislative policy and congressional relations functions as well as reviewing 

and responding to OPM regulations. 
11

Office of Regional Operations (ORO) – Additional FTE requested: 14

The Office of Regional Operations (ORO) oversees the agency’s six regional and two field 

offices, which receive and process appeals and related cases. It also manages MSPB’s

Mediation Appeals Program (MAP). AJs in the regional and field offices are responsible for

adjudicating assigned cases and for issuing fair, well-reasoned, and timely initial decisions. 

ORO is requesting 14 additional FTE. The quality of MSPB’s customer service depends heavily

on having a staff of highly skilled and well-trained AJs, led by actively involved Chief AJs, to 

adjudicate employee appeals. Adjudication and the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) efforts 

that accompany it constitute the core statutory mission of the MSPB. 

The under staffing of the regional and field offices over a period of many years left the agency little 

prepared for the current wave of furlough related appeals, and the problem will be exacerbated if

sequester cuts resume in FY 2016 and we continue to lose AJ’s through retirements. As of this 

writing, one of our six Regional Directors, one of the two Chief Administrative Judges and about 

a third of the AJ staff are currently eligible for retirement. One Regional Director retired at 

the end of December 2014. Without taking significant action now; we endanger the success of the

Board’s core statutory mission.

A resumption of sequester cuts in FY 2016 is likely to bring about an increase in adverse personnel 

actions which means more furlough appeals for ORO. Additionally, the recently passed Veterans 

Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014will likely increase our initial appeals and require 

ORO to prioritize resources for these cases, since they must be processed within 21 days of being 

filed at MSPB. Thus, resources will need to be diverted from other categories of ongoing cases, 

which will likely lead to delays in processing all other categories of initial appeals.

Office of the Clerk of the Board (OCB) – Additional FTE requested: 1 

The Office of the Clerk of the Board (OCB) receives and processes cases filed at MSPB 

headquarters, rules on certain procedural matters, and issues MSPB decisions and orders. The office 

serves as MSPB’s public information center, coordinates media relations, produces publications, 

operates MSPB’s library and on-line information services, and administers the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act programs. The office also certifies official records to the 

courts and Federal administrative agencies, and manages MSPB’s records systems, legal research 

systems, and Open Government responsibilities. The OCB is requesting one additional FTE in FY 

2016 to support the records management, FOIA, and Privacy Act programs administered by this 

office. 
12

Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE) – Additional FTE requested: 2

The Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE) carries out MSPB’s statutory responsibility to 

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

are sent to the President and the Congress and are distributed to a national audience. The office 

provides information and advice to Federal agencies on issues that have been the subject of MSPB 

studies. The office reviews and reports on the significant actions of OPM. The office also conducts 

special projects and program evaluations for the agency and has responsibility for preparing MSPB’s 

strategic and performance plans and performance reports required by the Government Performance 

and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010.

OPE is requesting 2 additional FTE. These FTE would support MSPB’s statutory functions of 

merit system studies and OPM oversight and strategic planning and performance improvement 

activities required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010. The FTE increase would augment OPE’s ability to (1) conduct merit 

system studies; (2) support evidence-based merit system studies, strategic planning, and performance 

improvement; (3) carry out strategic planning and performance measurement activities for MSPB 

(e.g., develop and maintain the agency Strategic Plan and Resources Management Plan and produce 

the Annual Report); and (4) conduct outreach and develop materials to educate policymakers and 

stakeholders about merit system issues and policy recommendations. 
13

Office of Information Resource Management (IRM) – Additional FTE requested: 2

The Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) develops, implements, and maintains 

MSPB’s automated information systems to help the agency manage its caseload efficiently and carry 

out its administrative and research responsibilities.

IRM is requesting 2 additional FTE. These FTE will support our dedicated technical support call 

center for external users which has experienced a consistent high volume of user calls. The technical 

support call center will provide the agency a central call center to handle all external calls for all time 

zones and provide live-chat support from 7am - 8 pm Eastern Time (ET). Hiring permanent 

Government employees instead of contractors will allow them to understand MSPB specific 

systems, avoid security issues with granting external contractors access to our internal systems, 

provide better customer service, maintain continuity and allow them to better support our west 

coast offices up to 8 pm ET.

Office of Financial and Administrative Management (FAM) – Additional FTE requested: 2

The Office of Financial and Administrative Management (FAM) administers the budget, 

accounting, travel, time and attendance, human resources, procurement, property management, 

facilities, transportation services, mailroom, physical security, and general services functions of 

MSPB. It develops and coordinates internal management programs, including review of agency 

internal controls. It also administers the agency’s cross-servicing agreements with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Finance Center (NFC) for payroll services, and U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) for accounting services, and USDA's 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for human resources management services.

FAM is requesting 2 additional FTE. The FTE increases include: (1) a GS-13 Security Specialist. 

that will develop, implement and maintain procedural and technical methods to enhance physical 

protection throughout the organization; and (2) a GS-12 Writer/Editor Specialist that will research, 

analyze, distill, and present information that has benefit to the Agency as it relates to policies and 

procedures. The individual will perform the following tasks: (a) write policy; (b) prepare reports on 

management and administrative activities; (c) explain the programmatic rules and regulations that 

affect the Agency, especially those concerning rights and obligations; (d) report results of research 

and investigations; (e) announce regulations; and (f) provide training and operating manuals for the 

use of employees.

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) – Additional FTE requested: 1

The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) plans, implements, and evaluates MSPB’s 

equal employment opportunity programs. It processes complaints of alleged discrimination brought 

by agency employees and provides advice and assistance on affirmative employment initiatives to 

MSPB’s managers and supervisors.

EEO is requesting 1 additional FTE. It is anticipated that eight agency employees will assist with 

EEO related services on a collateral duty basis. These include three collateral duty EEO counselors 

and five collateral duty Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators. An additional FTE in EEO 

would significantly strengthen EEO and better enable the agency to achieve goals of ensuring a 

representative, diverse workforce. Specifically, an additional FTE would enable EEO to develop, 
14

better promote, and implement diversity and inclusion initiatives within MSPB. Other 

responsibilities would include: identifying, developing and providing training relating to EEO, 

diversity and inclusion, and conflict resolution related training, which would help increase employee 

engagement and morale. Other significant duties would include: (1) transferring reasonable 

accommodation coordinator functions into a full-time position, which has several advantages over 

the function being performed on a collateral duty basis; (2) better promoting the use of the Schedule 

A Hiring Authority for individuals with disabilities (including developing a data base and procedure 

for referring qualified candidates to MSPB hiring officials); and (3) assisting the EEO Director with 

planning substantive commemorative events, such as Unity Day, maintaining the EEO intranet

website, and performing the barrier analyses required under MD 715. Without the addition of one 

FTE, EEO may be limited in its ability to consistently carry out new and bold initiatives and to take 

the program to a higher level, particularly in times when the complaint and reasonable 

accommodation caseloads increase.
15

Budget Schedules - Schedule O - Object Classification (In Thousands of Dollars)

FY 2014 

Actual

FY 2015

Enacted 

FY 2016 

Request

Change

Direct obligations:

Personnel compensation 22,211 26,420 30,493 4,073

Civilian personnel benefits 6,194 6,619 7,519 900

Travel of persons 322 449 480 31

Transportation of things 87 75 85 10 

Rental payments to GSA 3,631 3,700 3,800 100

Rental payments to others 185 110 122 12

Communications, utilities, and 

miscellaneous charges

 548 732 904 172

Printing and reproduction 114 190 200 10

Other services 836 1,528 2,124 596

Other purchases of goods and services 

from Government accounts

 914 1,260 1,525 265

Maintenance of facilities 44 28 40 12

Maintenance of equipment 328 565 600 35

Supplies & Materials 190 170 200 30

Equipment/Lease Improvements 926 894 924 30

Direct Obligations... 36,530 42,740 49,016 $6,276

Reimbursable Obligations... 2,345 2,345 2,579 234

Total New Obligations... $38,875 $45,085 $51,595 $6,510 

Additionally, for FY 14 actuals, MSPB incurred $2.7 million in obligations utilizing FY 13/14 carryover funds.
16

Schedule Q - Employment Summary

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Enacted

FY 2016 

Request Change

Direct:

 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 183 211 238 27

Reimbursable:

 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 15 15 17 2

Total... 198 226 255 29

About MSPB

MSPB has its origin in the Pendleton Act of 1883, which established the Civil Service Commission 

(CSC) and a merit-based employment system for the Federal Government. The Pendleton Act was 

passed after the assassination of President Garfield by a disgruntled Federal job seeker and grew out 

of the 19th century reform movement to curtail the excesses of political patronage in Government

and ensure a stable highly qualified workforce to serve the public. Over time, it became clear that the 

CSC could not properly, adequately, and simultaneously set managerial policy, protect the merit 

systems, and adjudicate appeals. Concern over the inherent conflict of interest in the CSC’s role as 

both rule-maker and judge was a principal motivating factor behind the passage of the Civil Service 

Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). The CSRA replaced the CSC with three new agencies: MSPB as the 

successor to the Commission;3 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to serve as the 

President’s agent for Federal workforce management policy and procedure; and the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority (FLRA) to oversee Federal labor-management relations. The CSRA also 

codified for the first time the values of the merit systems as the MSPs and defined the PPPs.4

Adjudication

The majority of the cases brought to the MSPB are appeals of adverse actions – that is, removals, 

suspensions of more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, and furloughs of 30 days or less. The 

next largest number of cases involves appeals of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and 

some agency determinations in retirement matters. The MSPB also receives a significant number of 

appeals under three important statutory authorities, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act 

of 2012 (WPEA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(USERRA), and the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Other types of 

actions that may be appealed to the MSPB include: performance-based removals or reductions in 

grade; denials of within-grade salary increases; reduction-in-force actions; suitability determinations; 

OPM employment practices (the development and use of examinations, qualification standards, 

tests, and other measurement instruments); denials of restoration or reemployment rights; and 

certain terminations of probationary employees.

 

3 Bogdanow, M., and Lanphear, T., History of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Journal of the Federal Circuit Historical Society, Volume 4, 2010.

4 Title 5 U.S.C. § 2301 and Title 5 U.S.C. § 2302, respectively.
17

An appellant files an appeal with the appropriate MSPB regional or field office having geographical 

jurisdiction. An AJ in the office assures that the parties receive the due process procedures called 

for in the MSPB’s regulations and, after providing a full opportunity to develop the record on all 

relevant matters, issues an initial decision. Unless a party files a PFR with the Board, the initial 

decision becomes final 35 days after issuance. Any party, or OPM or the Office of Special Counsel, 

may petition the full Board in Washington to review the initial decision. The Board’s decision on a 

PFR constitutes the final administrative action on the appeal.

In appellate cases, the Board’s final decision, whether it is an initial decision of an AJ that has 

become final or the Board’s decision on a PFR, may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) or, in cases involving allegations of discrimination, to a U.S. 

district court or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

If a party believes that the other party is not complying with an MSPB order or MSPB-approved 

settlement agreement, the party can file a Petition for Enforcement with the regional or field office 

that issued the initial decision. If the AJ finds compliance, that constitutes an initial decision and the 

party may file a PFR with the MSPB. If the AJ finds non-compliance, the case is referred to the 

MSPB General Counsel, who is charged with enforcing compliance.

In addition to adjudicating cases on the merits, the Board also provides alternative dispute

Resolution (ADR) services to assist parties in resolving the case. Use of these services is voluntary, 

provides the parties more control of the process and can results in effective resolution of a case. In 

addition, resolving a case through ADR procedures can save time and reduce costs to the appellant, 

agency, MSPB, and Government-wide associated with the more formal regulations and procedures 

involved with adjudication on the merits. The MSPB provides opportunities for the parties to settle 

initial appeals filed in the regional offices and to settle PFR filed at headquarters. The MSPB also 

offers trained mediators (at no charge to the parties) who can facilitate confidential discussions 

between the parties to aid in addressing issues and barriers to agreement and reaching a settlement 

to which both parties agree. The parties control the results under the guidance of the mediator who 

plays no role in deciding the appeal. 

Mediation Appeals Program

The Mediation Appeals Program (MAP) offers the services of the agency’s trained and certified 

mediators as an alternative to the formal appeal processes and procedures of the MSPB’s 

regulations. Mediators facilitate a discussion between the parties in a confidential setting to help 

them identify issues and barriers to agreement that will aid in resolving their disputes and settling the 

appeal quickly, economically, and to the benefit of all concerned. Unlike traditional mediation, MAP 

charges no fees. Both parties must agree to its use before the appeal will be accepted for the MAP 

process, and both must agree on its resolution before any settlement is concluded. Unlike the 

traditional appeal process, the parties control the result of the case under the skilled guidance of the 

mediator, who plays no role in deciding the appeal, should accord not be reached. Importantly, 

because almost all mediations occur near the beginning of adjudication, MAP saves time and money 

for the Federal employees and agencies who resolve their cases through this process. 

Because of these advantages, MAP has become a popular and successful program, as shown by the 

fact that a greater number of cases have been mediated each year since the program’s inception. 

Moreover, while MAP had been settling approximately half the cases mediated (nearly 60%when 
18

those that settle after return to the traditional adjudication track are considered), in recent years the 

success rate in MAP alone has increased so that approximately two-thirds of the cases mediated are 

now being settled. Even where the case is resolved by an AJ’s decision, the mediation process often 

helps sharpen the parties’ focus on the matters truly in dispute and the resolution they seek. 

Moreover, based on the evaluations the parties are asked to complete at the end of each mediation, 

more than 95% of the participants have stated that they would use MAP again.

Merit Systems Studies and OPM Oversight

The MSPB has the statutory responsibility to conduct studies of the civil service and other merit 

systems in the Executive Branch and submit the resulting reports to the President and Congress. 

The studies support strong and viable merit systems, which protect the public’s interest in a high 

quality, professional workforce managed under the merit system principles and free from prohibited 

personnel practices. The studies are based on objective, independent research that assesses and 

evaluates Federal merit system policies, operations, and practice from a long-term perspective. This 

prospective function, in conjunction with the agency’s adjudication of individual appeals and our 

authority to review human resource regulations, ensures that the Board has the full legal authority 

necessary to oversee Federal merit systems at both the systemic and individual level.

MSPB studies address the variety of challenges facing the Federal Government in managing its 

workforce.

Studies released in FY 2014 include: 

Clean Record Settlement Agreements and the Law(December 2013) discusses the prevalence of clean 

record settlement agreements and the importance of parties making careful decisions about what an 

agreement will cover and choosing words that accurately express their intentions. This report speaks 

to a Government-wide practice that directly affects when and how employment disputes (including 

appeals before MSPB) are resolved.

Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Understanding and Addressing Perceptions of Favoritism 

(December 2013) discusses the merit system principle that calls for protecting Federal employees 

from “personal favoritism.” Despite this principle, over one-quarter of Federal employees believe 

that their supervisor demonstrates favoritism by treating some employees better than others based 

on friendship or other affinity rather than a legitimate merit-based reason. Such perceptions can 

damage morale, productivity, and leadership credibility. This report (1) clarifies what constitutes 

favoritism; (2) presents Federal employees’ views on the occurrence and consequences of favoritism; 

(3) recommends managerial practices to prevent favoritism and reduce perceptions of its occurrence; 

and (4) identifies steps that employees can take to better understand Federal Government merit 

systems and improve their ability to advance.

Evaluating Job Applicants: The Role of Training and Experience in Hiring (January 2014) is the latest in a 

series of MSPB reports on methods used to assess and select applicants for Federal jobs. Training 

and experience (T&E) assessments are central to Federal hiring and promotion decisions, from entry 

level to executive level. T&E assessments use information about the past to make inferences about 

a person’s present proficiency and likelihood of future job success. For reasons of workforce 

quality, productivity, and fairness, T&E assessments must be done in a manner that best identifies 

true differences in ability as accurately as possible. This report discusses the strengths and 
19

weaknesses of T&E assessments, provides recommendations for their most effective use, and 

describes specific strategies to improve T&E assessment and the resulting hiring decisions.

Sexual Orientation and the Federal Workplace: Policy and Perception(May 2014) examines Federal employee 

perceptions of workplace treatment based on sexual orientation, reviews how Federal workplace 

protections from sexual orientation discrimination evolved, and explores whether further action is 

warranted to communicate or clarify those protections. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

interprets the tenth prohibited personnel practice at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10) to prohibit sexual 

orientation discrimination, but that prohibition is neither specifically expressed in statute nor 

affirmed in judicial decision and has been subject to alternate interpretations. The report notes that 

any ambiguity in the longstanding policy prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the Federal

workplace would be resolved by legislation making that prohibition explicit.

Studies planned for issuance in FY 2015:

Veteran Hiring in the Civil Service: Practices and Perceptions will discuss (1) civil service hiring laws and 

regulations regarding veterans, noting their complexity and the implications of that complexity for 

compliance and transparency; (2) the status and implementation of a law that governs the 

appointment of recently-retired members of the armed services to civil service positions in the 

Department of Defense; and (3) the perceptions of Federal employees regarding the treatment of 

veterans in the civil service.

Fair and Open Competition for Federal Employment. The principle of fair and open competition for filling 

jobs is a longstanding and fundamental element of Federal merit systems. Changes in technology 

and policy, including a near-complete decentralization of the Federal hiring and a proliferation of 

noncompetitive hiring authorities, have materially changed the nature and extent of job 

competitions. The report study will discuss the ideal and implementation of fair and open 

competition and explore whether changes to policy or practice may be needed.

Veterans’ Employment Redress Laws in the Federal Civil Service. The Veterans Employment Opportunities 

Act of 1998 (VEOA) provides an avenue for veterans to seek redress for violations of their 

preference rights or right to consideration for certain vacancies. The Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) provides an avenue for redress for 

individuals who are discriminated against based on a military service obligation or denied their 

reemployment rights following such service. This report will review statutes and case law to discuss 

redress procedures under VEOA and USERRA and important ways in which those two laws differ.

Training and Development of Senior Executives. The Senior Executive Service (SES) was established by 

the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978. According to the CSRA, the SES is to be managed so 

as to “provide for the initial and continuing systematic development of highly competent senior 

executives.” This study will examine some frequently used leadership training and development 

activities, their level of effectiveness (e.g., learning, behavioral change), advantages and 

disadvantages, and costs to provide agencies with information for determining the best strategies to 

pursue when developing senior executives.

Merit System Principles Education. Given MSPB’s mission to protect the merit system principles 

(MSPs) and promote an effective Federal workforce free of prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), 

MSPB can and should play a clear role in educating managers, human resources staff, and employees 
20

about the meaning and importance of the MSPs. Accordingly, the report of this study will: (1) 

assess how well Federal employees believe they are protected by the MSPs; (2) consolidate 

information on the MSPs to serve as a reference guide for supervisors and employees; and (3) 

evaluate and summarize current agency training practices regarding the MSPs and PPPs.

OPE also conducts outreach and education, which is integral to MSPB’s role as guardian of merit 

systems in the Federal Government. For example, research-based report recommendations on civil 

service policy and practice will not produce the desired changes unless policymakers and 

practitioners are aware of—and are persuaded by—those recommendations. Similarly, for Federal

agencies to comply with civil service law, it is essential that they understand how MSPB interprets 

and applies the provisions of title 5, United States Code, and other statutes.

Management Support

Information Technology

The MSPB’s primary mission is to provide for independent adjudication of appeals of personnel 

actions for Federal employees. Many of the appeals filed with the agency are from pro se appellants -

- employees representing themselves. Pro se appellants do not generally have equal knowledge of 

the case filing process or equal access to the information available, especially if they are stationed 

overseas. Yet, they are expected to file an appeal and to respond to orders in a timely manner or 

risk having their cases dismissed. The MSPB’s electronic filing system, e-Appeal Online, allows

Federal agencies and employees instant access to filings and issuances through the internet as soon 

as they are uploaded. It also provides the pro se appellants relevant information at each step of the 

filing process to assist them in submitting material and correct answers to the questions on the 

automated appeal form. Parties who file electronically can also receive acknowledgement orders 

from the agency by e-mail instantaneously, rather than through the regular mail. 

The agency has also implemented an agency-wide, electronic Case Management System (CMS). The 

system is used to process and track each initial appeal and Petition for Review filed with the agency. 

CMS has also been integrated with the MSPB's e-Appeal, document management, and document 

assembly systems to allow our Administrative Judges and Attorneys to more efficiently create legal 

documents that are pre-populated with case data. In addition, MSPB has implemented an agencywide, web-based office calendar system to make staff aware of scheduled events, such as hearings, 

leave, and outreach. In FY 2014, MSPB piloted the Virtual Desktop Interface (VDI) technology, 

which allows MSPB employees easy and efficient access to their desktop while working at home or 

on travel. In FY 2015, VDI will be implemented agency-wide. 

Human Resources

The MSPB contracts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) for selected human resources administrative and operational services 

through an interagency agreement. The agreement is developed between the two agencies and 

monitored by the MSPB Director of Human Resources (HR), who is located in headquarters. The 

services listed in the agreement are not meant to be all-inclusive and the two agencies work together 

in a mutually cooperative manner to handle HR issues that arise that may not be specifically 

addressed in the interagency agreement.
21

The MSPB contracts with Federal Occupational Health (FOH), a service unit within the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Program Support center, to provide basic occupational 

health services to all of its employees throughout the country. In addition, the agency contracts with 

FOH to offer all of its employee’s access to an employee assistance program (EAP). The EAP 

assists the agency in addressing productivity issues by providing both prevention and intervention 

for employee problems, which ultimately improves employee health and functioning, as well as 

workplace performance. The MSPB’s agreement with FOH provides for a comprehensive EAP, 

delivering short-term, problem-focused counseling and a variety of services. While many health and 

wellness activities and accommodations are not equally available to each MSPB employee with 

respect to workplace or onsite availability of services, the agency does strive to ensure that each 

employee understands that it fully supports a healthy and safe work place for all employees.

Financial Management

The MSPB has initiated cross-servicing agreements with U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of 

Public Debt (BPD) for its accounting, financial auditing, purchasing, and travel-related services and 

support. The agency also has an agreement in place with APHIS for personnel services and the 

USDA National Finance Center (NFC) for processing of payroll and payroll-related activities 

including earnings and leave statements, W-2 information, and debt management. Our crossservicing relationships with these organizations have provided MSPB with timely responses and 

more accurate processing of information from larger pools of knowledgeable staff than would be 

possible with smaller in-house staff. APHIS, BPD and NFC have the resources to stay current with 

the latest technologies so they can provide these services more efficiently and economically.

Equal Employment Opportunity

The EEO office (EEOO) plans, implements, and evaluates MSPB's affirmative employment 

programs and initiatives, advises senior executives, managers and supervisors about these programs 

and initiatives and provides all employees training on rights and remedies available under antidiscrimination laws and whistleblower protection laws. EEOO provides counseling, complaint and 

alternative dispute resolution processes to current and former MSPB employees and applicants for 

employment who allege employment discrimination. EEOO provides similar processes to 

individuals who allege disability discrimination in their access to MSPB programs and activities. The 

office evaluates and reports the MSPB's complaints data and workforce demographics by 

occupation and grade to the Congress, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the OPM 

and other external stakeholders. EEOO also works with MSPB employees to provide Special 

Emphasis Observance Programs and a biennial Unity Day Program to promote the value of 

diversity and inclusiveness in achieving the agency's mission. 
22

Organization Chart

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

 CHAIRMAN MEM BER

General Counsel

Equal Employment

 Opportunity

Clerk of the

Board

Administrative 

Law Judge

Regional

 Operations

Appeals Counsel Policy and 

Evaluation

Regional Offices 

Atlanta, Chicago,

Dallas,

Philadelphia,

San Francisco, and

Washington, DC 

Field Offices

Denver and

New York

Financial and

Administrative

Management

Information 

Resources 

Management

Executive 

Director

Human Resources Management services are provided by 

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (A PHIS) Business Services. 

Payroll services are provided by USDA's 

National Finance Center.

Accounting services are provided by the Department of the Treasury’s 

Bureau of the Public Debt.

VICE CHAIRMAN
23