§

Annual Performance Report (APR)

for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2023

and

Annual Performance Plan (APP)

for

FY 2024 (Final) & FY 2025 (Proposed)

March 8, 2024

U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board
ii MSPB APR-APP for FY 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

This page intentionally left blank.
iii MSPB APR-APP for FY 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Table of Contents

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

Reduction of the Petitions for Review (PFR) Inherited Inventory .....................................................1

Summary of FY 2023 Performance Results ..........................................................................................2

About MSPB............................................................................................................................................2

Current Organization...............................................................................................................................3

Summary of Changes in This APR-APP ...............................................................................................3

Linking This Plan to Other Agency Documents ..................................................................................3

MSPB Performance Framework............................................................................................4

Mission......................................................................................................................................................4

Vision........................................................................................................................................................4

Organizational Values..............................................................................................................................4

Strategic Goals and Objectives...............................................................................................................5

Management Objectives: .........................................................................................................................5

Comprehensive Performance Results and Plans ...................................................................6

Strategic Goal 1........................................................................................................................................6

Strategic Goal 2......................................................................................................................................15

Management Objectives........................................................................................................................18

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish MSPB’s Objectives ...................................... 24

Strategic Goal 1......................................................................................................................................24

Strategic Goal 2......................................................................................................................................26

Management Objectives........................................................................................................................27

Internal Management Challenges .........................................................................................................28

External Trends......................................................................................................................................30

Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation.......................................................... 32

Program Evaluation............................................................................................................ 32

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2023 ................................................................................. 34

Appendix B: Information Required under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(i)(1) and (2)............................... 41

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report................................. 42

Appendix D: More Information about MSPB...................................................................... 44

List of Common Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................... 49
iv MSPB APR-APP for FY 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

This page intentionally left blank.
v MSPB APR-APP for FY 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Foreword

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) submits this Annual Performance Report and 

Annual Performance Plan (APR-APP) for FY 2023-2025, which combines the final APR for

FY 2023 with the APPs for FY 2024 (final) and FY 2025 (proposed), as required by the 

Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). It also contains 

information about cases involving whistleblowers pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA, see Appendix A), appeals processing as required by Title 5 of 

the United States Code (U.S.C.) § 7701(i)(1) (see Appendix B), and, in accordance with the 21st

Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (Pub. L. 115-336), our Modernization of Public-facing Digital 

Services Report (see Appendix C).

The APR-APP contains information about MSPB, including its origins in civil service history; role

and functions; scope of responsibility; organization and structure; how it brings value to the merit 

systems, Federal agencies, the workforce, and the public; and information about merit system

principles (MSPs) and prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) (see Appendix D). The APR-APP is 

based on the MSPB Strategic Plan for FY 2022-2026, compares annual performance results for 

FY 2023 to performance targets defined in March 2023, and includes prior year results for 

comparative purposes. It also contains final performance goals, measures, and targets for FY 2024;

and proposed goals, measures, and targets for FY 2025; along with explanatory information on 

changes; a summary of the external trends and internal management challenges that may affect 

MSPB’s work; means and strategies; and information about performance measurement and 

program evaluation. 

The APR-APP has been prepared in accordance with GPRAMA and guidance provided by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other sources. Additional information about MSPB’s 

activities can be found in the Annual Report (AR) for FY 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1206. MSPB’s 

APR-APPs and ARs are available on MSPB’s website at www.mspb.gov. 

MSPB invites customers and stakeholders to send comments on the APR-APP to:

Cynthia Ferentinos, Ph.D.

Performance Improvement Officer (PIO)

Office of Policy and Evaluation

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20419

Toll Free: 1-800-209-8960

Fax: 202-653-7130

Email: mspb@mspb.gov (to the attention of the PIO)

Follow us on X (formerly known as Twitter) @USMSPB.
vi MSPB APR-APP for FY 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

This page intentionally left blank.
1 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

APR-APP for FY 2023-2025

Introduction

A highly qualified, diverse Federal workforce managed under MSPs and in a manner free from PPPs 

is critical to ensuring Federal agency performance and service to the public. MSPs are essential 

management practices that help ensure the Federal Government’s ability to recruit, select, develop, 

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

organizational results for the American people. PPPs are specific, proscribed behaviors that 

undermine MSPs and adversely affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the workforce and the 

Government. MSPB’s fundamental function is to ensure that the Federal workforce is managed in a 

manner consistent with MSPs and protected from PPPs. 

Reduction of the Petitions for Review (PFR) Inherited Inventory

Between January 7, 2017, and March 3, 2022, the Board did not have a quorum of members and 

therefore could not vote on any PFRs of initial decisions. (MSPB continued to process initial appeals

and issue decisions in the regional and field offices (RO/FOs), processed appeals at headquarters 

(HQ), prepared draft decisions awaiting Board review and voting, and conducted other statutory and 

administrative functions where possible without a quorum.) By the time a quorum was restored on 

March 4, 2022, with the swearing-in of Raymond A. Limon and Tristan L. Leavitt as Board 

members, the number of cases at HQ—the inherited inventory—was 3,793. Restoration of a 

quorum allowed MSPB to resume issuing decisions on PFRs and other cases at HQ and to resume 

issuing reports of merit systems studies. 

On June 1, 2022, Cathy A. Harris was sworn in as the third Board member, providing a full 

complement of Board members for the first time since March 1, 2015. Ms. Harris was designated as 

Vice Chairman and has been serving as Acting Chairman.1 Member Leavitt departed MSPB after 

fulfilling his term, which ended on February 28, 2023. Acting Chairman Harris and Member Limon 

represent a quorum of Board members, and MSPB remains fully operational. 

In FY 2023, MSPB made significant progress towards reducing the HQ inherited inventory by 

closing 1,484 cases,

2 which greatly exceeds the average annual number of cases decided by the 

Board.3 These case closures include more than 75% of the oldest 1,000 cases. As of September 30, 

1 Acting Chairman Harris’s nomination as Chairman was returned to the President at the end of the 117th Congress. On January 3, 

2023, the President renominated her as Chairman, and her nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs. On July 3, 2023, President Biden announced his intent to nominate Henry J. Kerner as Member. Mr. 

Kerner’s nomination was sent to the Senate on July 11, 2023. After a nomination hearing on November 30, 2023, Mr. Kerner was 

reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and placed on the Senate calendar.

Both nominations were returned to the President at the end of the 1st session of the 118th Congress. On January 8, 2024, the 

nominations were sent to the Senate, and on January 17, 2024, they were reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and placed on the Senate calendar. On March 6, 2024, the Senate confirmed Ms. Harris 

as Chairman. 

2 From Case Processing Statistics, Summary of Cases Decided by MSPB, a report developed for Table 1 of the U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board Annual Report for FY 2023.

3 The annual average for cases processed (excluding sequestration-related furlough cases that were handled via consolidation) between 

FY 2010 and FY 2016 (prior to the loss of a quorum) was 935 cases.
2 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

2023, 1,884 cases (approximately half) of the inherited inventory (3,793 cases)4remained, and MSPB 

expects to resolve these pending cases in FY 2024 and FY 2025. 

Summary of FY 2023 Performance Results

In FY 2023, MSPB exceeded 4 of 9 strategic and management objectives, including those for 

adjudication of initial appeals in the RO/FOs and adjudication of HQ cases, which resulted in a 

significant reduction of the inherited inventory. MSPB met 4 of 9 objectives, including those for 

quality of initial decisions and for merit system studies. MSPB did not meet its information 

technology (IT) modernization objective, due to the challenges inherent in replacing legacy core 

business applications while trying to support record caseloads due to the inherited inventory. MSPB 

continued to improve several performance goals (PGs) and measures during FY 2023, as noted in 

this document. Performance targets are updated for FY 2024, while most FY 2025 performance 

targets are to be determined (TBD) based on FY 2024 results. Detailed information is provided in 

the section on Comprehensive Performance Results and Plans. 

About MSPB

A Merit-based U.S. Civil Service. A brief review of the history of our Federal civil service helps 

explain the origin and purpose of MSPB. Until the early 1880s, the Federal civil service was a 

patronage or “spoils” system in which the president’s administration appointed Federal workers 

based on their political beliefs and support of his campaign rather than on the employee’s suitability 

and qualifications to perform particular Federal jobs.5 Over time, this practice contributed to an 

unstable Government workforce lacking the necessary qualifications to perform its work, which in 

turn adversely affected the efficiency and effectiveness of the Government and its ability to serve the 

American people. 

The patronage system continued until President James A. Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled 

Federal job seeker who felt he was owed a Federal job because he supported the president’s 

campaign. A public outcry for reform resulted in passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883. The 

Pendleton Act created the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which monitored and regulated a civil 

service system based on merit and the use of competitive examinations to select qualified individuals 

for Federal positions. Congress later enacted the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, which provided that 

a civil servant could be removed only for such cause as promoted the efficiency of the service. 

Subsequent laws and regulations authorized the CSC to review the procedures used to remove civil 

servants and the validity of the reasons for removal. These developments contributed to 

improvements in Government efficiency and effectiveness by helping to ensure the stable retention 

of a highly qualified Federal workforce, free from partisan political pressure and available to provide 

capable and effective service to the American people.

During the following decades, it became clear that the CSC could not, in an adequate and proper 

manner, simultaneously set managerial policy, protect the merit systems, and adjudicate employee 

appeals. Concern over the inherent or perceived conflict of interest in the CSC’s role as both the 

rule-maker and adjudicator of those same rules was a principal motivating factor behind the passage 

4 Merit Systems Protection Board Lack of Quorum and the Inherited Inventory: Chart of Cases Decided and Cases Pending, 

https://www.mspb.gov/foia/files/HQ_Case_Processing_Data.pdf.

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

2010, pages 109-110. 
3 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA).6 The CSRA replaced the CSC with three new 

agencies: MSPB as the successor to the Commission,

7 by serving as the guardian of the merit 

systems and adjudicating employee appeals; the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as the 

president’s agent for Federal workforce policy and procedure; and the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority to oversee Federal labor-management relations. 

Current Organization

MSPB HQ, located in Washington, D.C., has eight offices that are responsible for conducting its 

statutory and support functions. These are the Offices of Appeals Counsel (OAC), Clerk of the 

Board (OCB), Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Financial and Administrative Management

(FAM), General Counsel (OGC), Information Resources Management (IRM), Policy and Evaluation 

(OPE), and Regional Operations (ORO). The EEO Director reports directly to the Chairman, and 

the directors of the other offices report to the Chairman through the Executive Director. MSPB also 

has six ROs and two FOs located throughout the United States. These offices process initial appeals 

and report to the ORO Director. More information about MSPB’s role; functions and scope of 

responsibilities; organizational structure; and how it brings value to the merit systems, the Federal 

workforce, and the public is contained in Appendix D.

Summary of Changes in This APR-APP

This APR-APP includes final FY 2023 performance results, and performance targets for FY 2024 

(final) and FY 2025 (proposed). MSPB revised the FY 2024 targets from those contained in the 

FY 2024 APP (published in March 2023) based on restoration of the full Board, results of assessing 

various PGs and measures, and other changes in internal and external factors. The sections on 

internal challenges and external factors affecting our work, performance measurement and program 

evaluation, and means and strategies for achieving our objectives have also been updated.

Linking This Plan to Other Agency Documents 

This APR-APP aligns with MSPB’s Strategic Plan for FY 2022-2026. Individual performance plans 

for MSPB’s senior executives are linked to appropriate agency annual performance and management 

goals, as required. MSPB compares program performance results to performance targets in 

accordance with the GPRAMA and OMB guidance. The goals and targets for FY 2024 (final) and 

2025 (proposed) are in line with MSPB’s proposed budgets for those years.8 MSPB’s plans and 

reports are posted on MSPB’s website at www.mspb.gov.

6 Ibid. page 113. 

7 Ibid. page 114. 

8 MSPB does not define agency priority goals, does not have low-priority program activities, and does not have a specific role in 

achieving Federal cross-agency priority goals. MSPB does not have any duplicative, overlapping, or fragmented programs as 

referenced in Executive Order (EO) 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” dated June 13, 2011.

MSPB also has not identified any unnecessary agency plans and reports as referenced in GPRAMA (Pub. L. 111-352 § 1125). 
4 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

MSPB Performance Framework

Mission

Protect the merit system principles and promote an effective Federal workforce 

free of prohibited personnel practices.

Vision

A highly qualified, diverse Federal workforce that is fairly and effectively managed, 

providing excellent service to the American people.

Organizational Values

Excellence: We will base our decisions on statutes, regulations, and legal precedents; use 

appropriate scientific research methods to conduct our studies and make practical 

recommendations for improvement; and develop and use appropriate processes 

to oversee the regulations and significant actions of OPM. We will interact with 

our customers and stakeholders in a professional, respectful, and courteous 

manner. We will strive to be a model merit-based organization by applying the 

lessons we learn in our work to the internal management of MSPB.

Fairness: We will conduct our work in a fair, unbiased, and objective manner. We will be 

inclusive in considering the various perspectives and interests of stakeholders in 

our work and in our external and internal interactions with individuals 

and organizations. 

Timeliness: We will issue timely decisions in accordance with our performance goals and 

targets.9 We will issue timely reports on the findings and recommendations of our 

merit systems studies. We will respond promptly to inquiries from customers 

and stakeholders.

Transparency: We will make our regulations and procedures easy to understand and follow. We 

will communicate with our customers and stakeholders using clear language. We 

will make our decisions, merit systems studies, and other materials easy to 

understand and widely available and accessible on our website. We will enhance 

the understanding of our processes and the impact of our products through 

outreach efforts.

9 In FY 2024, MSPB will continue to focus on measures related to reducing the inherited inventory rather than average processing 

time.
5 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Strategic Goals and Objectives

Strategic Goal 1: Serve the public interest by protecting merit system principles and 

safeguarding the civil service from prohibited personnel practices.

Strategic Objectives:

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

adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. 

1A-RO: Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of initial appeals in the RO/FOs, 

supported by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

1A-HQ: Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of appeals at HQ, supported by 

fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions.

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

(HC) management issues. 

1D: Review and act upon the rules, regulations, and significant actions of OPM, 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: Support and improve the practice of merit, adherence to MSPs, and prevention of PPPs in 

the workplace through successful, targeted outreach and engagement.

2B: Advance the understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs for stakeholders and the public by 

developing and sharing informational and educational materials and guidance.

Management Objectives:

M1: Lead, manage, and develop employees to ensure a highly qualified, diverse, inclusive, 

and engaged workforce with the competencies to perform MSPB’s mission and 

support functions successfully.

M2: Modernize IT to support agency mission and administrative functions. 
6 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Comprehensive Performance Results and Plans

Strategic Goal 1: Serve the public interest by protecting merit system principles and 

safeguarding the civil service from prohibited personnel practices.

Strategic Objective 1A: Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of appeals 

supported by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

Strategic Objective 1A-RO: Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of initial 

appeals in the RO/FOs, supported by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

This objective was Exceeded. MSPB exceeded the target for timeliness of initial appeals processing 

with an average of 102 days, more than 10% fewer days than the target. In addition, 86% of 

reviewed initial decisions (IDs) met the Quality Review Team (QRT) standards. The QRT includes 

rotating members who review a sample of IDs to determine, among other things, whether the IDs 

were well organized and readable; and considered and analyzed material legal and factual issues, 

controlling case law, and statutory and regulatory authorities. This measure focuses on all IDs, not 

just those for which a PFR is filed. The PG statement for ADR is to ensure use of ADR processes, 

and the measure is the percentage of appeals referred to the Mediation Appeals Program (MAP). 

For FY 2023, 10% of IDs were referred to mediation, exceeding the objective.

The FY 2024 target for initial appeals quality is to have 85% of reviewed decisions meet QRT 

standards. The FY 2024 target for ADR is to refer 7% or more of appeals to MAP. The FY 2024 

target for average processing time for initial appeals remains 120 days or fewer. The FY 2025 targets 

for all PGs are TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Performance Goal 1A-RO-1: Ensure quality of IDs.

Measure: Percentage of reviewed IDs that meet QRT standards. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 86% of decisions reviewed met QRT standards.

FY 2023

Target 85% of decisions reviewed meet QRT standards.

Future Targets

FY 2024 85% of decisions reviewed meet QRT standards.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New measure in FY 2022 to be implemented in FY 2023.

FY 2022

New measure was defined as stated above. Regional Directors 

have reviewed 91% of all IDs issued, excluding settlements and 

withdrawals; ORO has reviewed 10% of such decisions, providing 

written feedback when not in compliance with law, regulation,

or policy.
7 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Performance Goal 1A-RO-2: Ensure processing timeliness for IDs (including 

addendum appeals).

Measure: Average case processing time for initial appeals (including addendum appeals).

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 102 days.

FY 2023

Target 120 days or fewer.

Future Targets

FY 2024 120 days or fewer. 

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 102 days.

FY 2019 105 days.

FY 2020 102 days.

FY 2021 105 days.

FY 2022 96 days.

Performance Goal 1A-RO-3: Encourage resolution through ADR. 

Measure: Percentage of appeals referred to MAP.

Current Performance Year 

FY 2023

Result 10% of cases referred to MAP. 

FY 2023

Target 6% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 7% or higher.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022 to be implemented in FY 2023.

FY 2022 MAP process changes have improved timeliness of MAP case processing, and a new PG 

statement and measure are defined above.
8 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Strategic Objective 1A-HQ: Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of HQ appeals,

supported by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

This objective was Exceeded. The PG for quality of Board decisions involves decisions on the 

merits issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on appeals of MSPB decisions 

filed with the Court. Appeals of MSPB decisions filed with the Court may include decisions issued 

by HQ or initial appeal decisions issued in the RO/FOs (but, in a typical year, would have a 

significantly larger percentage of decisions issued by HQ). Because this measure includes HQ 

decisions, it is considered an HQ case processing PG. A new measure for quality of Board decisions, 

implemented in FY 2023, is defined as the percentage of CAFC cases examining the merits of the 

MSPB’s decision that affirm the Board’s decision. This is a change from the prior measure (cases left 

unchanged by the CAFC) and is intended to focus on a more precise affirmance rate. (Note that the 

prior year results are for the previous measure of cases left unchanged by the CAFC.) The FY 2023 

target for this measure was 82% or higher of Board cases affirmed by the CAFC. The FY 2023 

result was 87% of Board cases affirmed by the CAFC.

Given the unique circumstances of the 5-year loss of a quorum, average processing time will not be

meaningful in the short term and will not be a useful indicator for managing the process of reducing

the unprecedented inventory of pending cases the new Board inherited. In its place, MSPB adopted 

new PGs and measures to track reduction of the inventory of cases at HQ. These two new measures

are the total number of HQ cases decided during the year and the percentage of oldest cases (as

identified at the beginning of the FY) decided by the end of the FY. These two PGs, in

combination, reflect the Board’s desire to reduce the overall inventory with a focus on closing older

cases first. MSPB exceeded the numeric target of 1,000 or more for cases decided at HQ, with a

total of 1,484 cases closed; and exceeded the goal of issuing decisions in 75% of the oldest 1,000

cases (as identified at the beginning of the FY), with 905 of the oldest 1,000 cases closed (121% of

the target).

For FY 2024, the target for Board case quality is 82% or higher of Board cases affirmed by the 

CAFC. The FY 2024 targets for inventory reduction PGs are to issue decisions in 1,000 or more 

HQ cases and to issue decisions in 75% (750) or more of the oldest 1,000 cases (as identified at the 

beginning of the FY). The FY 2025 targets for all HQ adjudication measures are TBD based on 

FY 2023 results. 

Performance Goal 1A-HQ-1: Ensure quality of Board decisions. 

Measure: Percentage of MSPB decisions affirmed of the cases decided on the merits by 

the CAFC. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 87% affirmed.

FY 2023

Target 82% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 83% or higher.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.
9 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Past Results

FY 2018 92% (using previous calculation)

FY 2019 86% (using previous calculation)

FY 2020 94% (using previous calculation)

FY 2021 83% (using previous calculation)

FY 2022 87% (using previous calculation); new measure for affirmance rate is stated above.

Performance Goal 1A-HQ-2: Reduce the total inventory of HQ cases. 

Measure: Total number of cases decided at HQ.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 1,484 cases decided.

FY 2023

Target Decide 1,000 cases or more.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Decide 1,000 cases or more.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure defined in FY 2022.

FY 2022 New measure was defined as stated above.

Performance Goal 1A-HQ-3: Reduce the inventory of the oldest HQ cases. 

Measure: The percentage of oldest cases (as identified at the beginning of the FY) decided.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 905 of (75% of) the oldest 1,000 cases = 121%.

FY 2023

Target Decide 75% or more of the oldest 1,000 cases.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Decide 75% or more of the oldest 1,000 cases.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022.

FY 2022 New measure was defined as stated above.
10 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Strategic Objective 1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions.

This objective was Exceeded. MSPB surpassed the goal related to average processing time for 

compliance case addenda in the RO/FOs, with an average processing time of 93 days, more than 

10% less than the target of 120 days. MSPB also assessed the HQ compliance case processing 

measure and determined that this measure should be deleted because the timing of many aspects of 

the process are outside of MSPB’s control. Therefore, it was not rated in FY 2023.

In FY 2024, MSPB will consider appropriate measures and numeric targets for processing

compliance addenda in the RO/FOs to ensure we encourage resolution of these cases in ways that 

support long-term efficiency and effectiveness. FY 2025 targets for both measures are TBD based 

on FY 2024 results.

Performance Goal 1B-1: Ensure processing timeliness of compliance cases in 

the RO/FOs.

Measure: Average processing time for compliance case addenda in the RO/FOs. A new 

measure may be defined in FY 2023.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 93 days.

FY 2023

Target

120 days or fewer. Consider appropriate measures and numeric targets to ensure we 

encourage resolution of compliance cases in ways that support long-term efficiency and 

effectiveness.

Future Targets

FY 2024

120 days or fewer. Consider appropriate measures and numeric targets to ensure we 

encourage resolution of compliance cases in ways that support long-term efficiency and 

effectiveness.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 95 days

FY 2019 104 days

FY 2020 94 days

FY 2021 93 days 

FY 2022 89 days
11 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Performance Goal 1B-2: Ensure processing timeliness of compliance cases at HQ. 

A new PG statement may be defined in FY 2024.

Measure: This performance goal was deleted at the end of FY 2023. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result

MSPB reviewed this measure and determined that it should be deleted due to the timing 

of many aspects of the process being outside of the influence of MSPB. Therefore, it was 

not rated in FY 2023 and was recommended and approved for deletion.

FY 2023

Target

Define new measure for this function based on continued assessment of the process and 

resources required and coordination with new agency leaders.

Past Results

FY 2018 No target set, not rated, no quorum.

FY 2019 No target set, not rated, no quorum.

FY 2020 No target set, not rated, no quorum.

FY 2021 No target set, not rated, no quorum.

FY 2022

Assessment of this PG statement and measure must be continued through FY 2023 to 

consider the process and resources needed to perform this function and to coordinate 

with new agency leaders.

Strategic Objective 1C: Conduct objective, timely studies of the Federal merit systems and 

Federal HC management issues. 

This measure was Met. MSPB achieved the newsletter target by publishing 3 Issues of Merit (IoM)

editions covering 7 MSPs and all 14 PPPs. Newsletter topics included preventing PPPs, patterns in 

perceptions of PPPs, sexual harassment in Federal workplaces, the effects of pressure to act 

unethically on employee engagement, supporting the human resources (HR) workforce, applicant 

assessments, using shared certificates, reference checking, hiring and managing students and recent 

graduates, hiring tech workers, developing job announcements, and performance appraisals. MSPB 

met the publication goal by publishing two reports, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 

Understanding and Addressing the Problem and Perceptions of Prohibited Personnel Practices: An Update, and 

one research brief, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update. MSPB achieved the survey 

target by administering the Federal HR Workforce Survey from March through May 2023.

The FY 2024 targets are to develop a prototype of a new research product line, to publish 1 study 

product, and to design or implement a focused interagency studies survey. The FY 2025 targets are 

TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Performance Goal 1C-1: Publish IoM newsletter or other articles.

Measure: Number and scope of IoM editions or other articles published.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result Published 3 IoM editions covering 7 MSPs and all 14 of the PPPs.

FY 2023

Target Publish 3 IoM editions.

Future Targets
12 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

FY 2024 Develop prototype of new research product line.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018

Published 3 IoM editions and 4 articles or briefs, Building Blocks for Effective Performance 

Management; The Role of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance 

Behaviors; Update on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace; and Improving Federal Hiring 

Through Better Assessment (all MSPs and 3 PPPs).

FY 2019

Published 3 IoM editions and 4 research briefs, Improving Federal Leadership Through Better 

Probationary Practices; The Perceived Incidence of Prohibited Personnel Practices; Remedying 

Unacceptable Employee Performance in the Federal Civil Service; and Managing Employees to Perform 

Emotionally Laborious Work (8 MSPs and 3 PPPs).

FY 2020 Published 3 IoM editions covering 8 MSPs. (Beginning in FY 2020, additional articles and 

research briefs were included in 1C-2.)

FY 2021 Published 3 IoM editions covering 7 MSPs and 3 PPPs. 

FY 2022 Published 3 IoM editions covering 8 MSPs and 3 PPPs.

Performance Goal 1C-2: Publish MSPB study reports, briefs, or other documents.

Measure: Number and scope (percentage of the workforce, agencies, or policy areas 

impacted) of merit systems study reports, briefs, and other documents published each year.

Current Performance Year 

FY 2023

Result

Published two reports, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing 

the Problem and Perceptions of Prohibited Personnel Practices: An Update, and one research brief,

Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update.

FY 2023

Target Publish 2 or more study documents. 

Future Targets

FY 2024 Publish 1 study document.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results. 

Past Results

FY 2018 No target set, not rated, no quorum.

FY 2019 No target set, not rated, no quorum. Took significant steps to prepare a new merit system 

studies research agenda for review/approval by the new Chairman. 

FY 2020

Published research brief, The State of Federal HR Workforce: Changes and Challenges. Prepared 

for publication and awaiting approval by new Board: MSPB Research Agenda for Merit 

Systems Studies; Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Understanding and Addressing the 

Problem; and The Importance of Job Fit for Federal Agencies and Employees.

FY 2021

Published 5 research briefs, The Importance of Job Fit for Agencies and Employees; Direct-Hire 

Authority Under 5 U.S.C. § 3304: Usage and Outcomes; Determining Acceptable Level of Competence 

for Step Increases; Agency Leader Responsibilities Related to Prohibited Personnel Practices; and

Confidence in Ability to Perform Successfully.

FY 2022 Published the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Research Agenda 2022-2026.
13 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Performance Goal 1C-3: Conduct surveys of Federal employees to assess and report 

on the health of the Federal merit systems.

Measure: Conduct periodic Governmentwide and focused surveys of Federal employees and 

others (including interrogatories directed to agencies), as appropriate.

Current Performance Year 

FY 2023

Result

Administered the Federal HR Workforce Survey from March through May 2023, 

preparing for data analyses. 

FY 2023

Target Design or implement a focused interagency studies survey.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Design or implement a focused interagency studies survey.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018

Continued to analyze 2016 Merit Principles Survey (MPS) data and draft reports and other 

documents. The next MPS will include content from a new research agenda (awaiting 

input from a new Chairman) and a secure web-based survey capability. Began defining 

requirements for a new survey capability. MSPB has obtained Enterprise Human 

Resources Integration (EHRI) data from OPM for FY 2016 and 2017 and is negotiating 

with OPM for continued access to EHRI data.

FY 2019

Procured a new web-based, Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program 

(FedRAMP)-certified survey application. Survey data is a critical source of information for 

topics on the new research agenda. Two interrogatories were sent to agencies 

for responses.

FY 2020

Content of next Governmentwide MPS nearly completed. After two extensions of OPM’s 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), the MPS is tentatively scheduled to be 

administered in the 2nd quarter of FY 2021. 

FY 2021

Successfully administered the 2021 MPS to more agencies than the 2010 and 2016 MPSs 

and in less than half the time to go from approval of final survey content to survey launch 

than in 2016. 2021 MPS data will support at least three research projects, and data were 

being prepared for public release. Also fielded two surveys to gather input on strategic 

planning from external stakeholders. 

FY 2022 Posted 2021 MPS data and data documentation to Data.gov and on the MSPB website. 

Prepared a survey of the Federal HR Workforce.

Strategic Objective 1D: Review and act upon the rules, regulations, and significant actions 

of OPM, as appropriate. 

This objective was Met. Information regarding requests to review OPM regulations and a review of 

OPM significant actions were included in the Annual Report for FY 2022.

The FY 2024 target for review of OPM regulations is to publish relevant information about FY 2023 

cases in the FY 2023 AR. The target for review of OPM significant actions is to maintain the scope 
14 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

and publish the review of OPM significant action in the FY 2023 AR. The FY 2025 target for both 

PGs is TBD based on FY 2024 results. 

Performance Goal 1D-1: Review OPM Regulations.

Measure: Include relevant information about cases requesting review of OPM regulations in 

the MSPB AR.

Current Performance Year 

FY 2023

Result FY 2022 AR published on April 18, 2023.

FY 2023

Target

Publish relevant information about FY 2022 cases involving review of OPM regulations in 

the FY 2022 AR.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Publish relevant information about FY 2023 cases involving a review of OPM regulations 

in the FY 2023 AR.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New measure in FY 2022.

FY 2022 New measure was defined as stated above.

Performance Goal 1D-2: Review and report on OPM significant actions.

Measure: Number and scope (e.g., percentage of the workforce, agencies, or policy areas 

impacted) of OPM significant actions that are reviewed and reported. 

Current Performance Year 

FY 2023

Result FY 2022 AR published on April 18, 2023. 

FY 2023

Target Maintain scope; publish review of OPM significant actions in the FY 2022 AR.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Maintain scope; publish review of OPM significant actions in the FY 2023 AR

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018

Published MSPB’s FY 2017 AR, including review of OPM significant actions. Significant 

FY 2017 actions included the final rule regarding the Annual Employee Survey (AES) 

requirement and the 2017 FEVS, reforming the Federal Government and reshaping the 

Federal civilian workforce, a framework for continuing development of Federal senior 

executives, and a Governmentwide survey of Federal work-life programs. 

FY 2019

Published MSPB’s FY 2018 AR, including review of OPM significant actions. Significant 

FY 2018 actions included a review of themes of previous reviews, such as OPM’s 

purpose, funding, focus, and activities. 

FY 2020

Published MSPB’s FY 2019 AR, including review of OPM significant actions. Significant 

FY 2019 actions included agency HC programs, hiring, workforce shaping, work-life 

programs, and employee performance management and rewards. 
15 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

FY 2021

Published MSPB’s FY 2020 AR, including review of OPM significant actions. Significant 

FY 2020 actions were related to the COVID-19 pandemic, improving applicant 

assessment, HC reviews, and guidance on the appointment of political appointees into the 

career service during the election period. 

FY 2022

Published MSPB’s FY 2021 AR, including review of OPM significant actions. Within the 

context of OPM leadership changes, the mandated study of OPM, and the COVID-19 

pandemic, OPM’s FY 2021 significant actions related to previous EOs, the presidential 

transition, and streamlining Federal hiring. MSPB will retain the current measure for 

review of OPM significant actions.

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 Objective 2A: Support and improve the practice of merit, adherence to MSPs, and 

prevention of PPPs in the workplace through successful, targeted outreach and 

engagement.

This objective was Exceeded. MSPB conducted 129 outreach events, over 40% more than the 

target of 90 events. Outreach events were conducted on topics such as merit systems and meritbased management; Federal disciplinary policies; MSPB regulations, procedures, results, and legal 

precedent; and results of merit systems studies. Events were conducted with Federal executive 

branch departments or agencies, Federal court organizations, affinity groups, a variety of legal 

groups (e.g., bar and other attorney associations, national institutes, law schools), and major legal 

and research conferences.

The FY 2024 target is to conduct 60 outreach events. The FY 2024 target has been lowered due to 

staffing and budget constraints. The FY 2025 target is TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Performance Goal 2A-1: Conduct effective outreach and engagement.

Measure: Number and scope of MSPB contacts with practitioners and stakeholders focused 

on improving the understanding or practice of merit, improving adherence to MSPs, and 

preventing PPPs in the workplace. 

Current Performance Year 

FY 2023

Result Conducted 129 outreach events. 

FY 2023

Target

Conduct 90 outreach events, adjust the outreach calendar, update guidance on outreach, 

and consider issues and methods for targeting outreach and engagement to 

specific groups.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Conduct 60 outreach events.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 Conducted 134 outreach events. Consideration of methods to collect customer feedback 

on events to continue in FY 2019. 

FY 2019

Conducted over 130 outreach events; given the low rate of events early in the FY, we 

decided that improvements in collection of customer feedback at outreach events will be 

reconsidered in the future in conjunction with agency priorities and available resources. 
16 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

FY 2020 Conducted 76 outreach events. 

FY 2021 Conducted 138 outreach events.

FY 2022

Conducted 112 outreach events and identified outreach process issues that need 

resolution to balance events and target specific groups. MSPB will continue to measure 

the number of outreach events.

Strategic Objective 2B: Advance the understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs for 

stakeholders and the public by developing and sharing informational and educational 

materials and guidance.

This objective was Met. MSPB achieved the FY 2023 target of publishing 6 or more informational 

or educational documents. Documents included 2 study reports, 1 research brief, and 3 IoM

newsletters. Also, MSPB’s work was cited 314 times in 64 sources. Notable citations included a 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, VA Equal Employment Opportunity: Increased 

Attention Needed to Improve Program Effectiveness, that referenced MSPB’s 2023 report, Prohibited Personnel 

Practices: An Update. The FY 2024 target for publishing informational or educational documents is to

develop a prototype for new educational materials and services product lines. The FY 2024 target 

for tracking references to our work is to maintain the scope of references and consider updates to 

the external references database and ways to improve access to automated tools for tracking 

refences. The FY 2025 targets for both goals are TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Performance Goal 2B-1: Develop and share informational and educational materials 

and guidance about merit, MSPs, and PPPs.

Measure: Number of new or updated informational or educational documents that contain 

information about the civil service and its history, the merit systems, MSPs, PPPs, and our 

process and outcomes made available electronically or on MSPB’s website. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result

Published a variety of resources, including materials on the e-Appeal Information Hub, 

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Lack of Quorum and Restoration of the Full 

Board, the FY 2022 Annual Report, and 2 merit systems studies reports (one on sexual 

harassment and the other an update on PPPs), 1 research brief (on sexual harassment), 

and 3 IoM editions.

FY 2023

Target Post or distribute electronically 6 new or updated informational or educational products.

Future Targets

FY 2024

Post or distribute electronically 4 new or updated informational or educational products. 

Develop a prototype for new educational materials and services product lines for OPE to 

share results related to MSPB research studies. 

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018

Posted 4 articles or briefs, 3 IoM editions, and 1 radio and 1 video interview. Added links 

to Board member nominations, updated Acting Chairman Robbins’s biography, and 

added pages for recent Board members and their lengths of service. Updated information 

for appellants seeking judicial review of whistleblower claims, Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) appeals under 38 U.S.C. § 714, PFR withdrawal policy, lack of quorum 

frequently asked questions (FAQs), Information Quality Guidelines, and 2017 Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) logs. 

FY 2019 Posted 3 IoM editions and 4 research briefs; 3 Federal Register (FR) notices and 5 press 

releases; the FY 2018 AR; other agency reports, plans, and budget documents; the 2018 
17 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

FEVS results; updated FAQs on MSPB functions given the lack of Board members; 

updated history of Board member service; and changes to the Judges Handbook. 

FY 2020

Created a COVID-19 webpage and guidance pursuant to EO 13891 and OMB 

Memorandum M-20-02. Published our Data Governance Body’s charter in accordance 

with the Federal Data Strategy (FDS). Published a new merit systems studies fact sheet, a 

research brief entitled The State of Federal HR Workforce: Changes and Challenges, and 3 IoM

editions. Updated the accessibility and PPP webpages. Published policy for prohibited 

conduct and the Zoom for Government privacy act statement and rules of behavior for 

external users. Published the MSPB Strategic Plan for FY 2020-2024, the APR-APP for 

FY 2019-2021, the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) for FY 2021, the FY 2019 

AR, the FY 2019 Annual Financial Report (AFR), and an information sheet on reductions 

in force (RIFs). Posted updated figures on PFR processing, Federal Activities Inventory 

Reform (FAIR) Act inventory, 2019 AES/FEVS results, and Notification and Federal 

Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act) data.

FY 2021

Posted over 20 documents in 12 categories, including: 5 research briefs; 3 IoM editions; 5

agency documents (APR-APP, AFR, APR, CBJ, and AR); 2020 AES/FEVS results; 2 FR

notices; 8 press releases; 3 Privacy Impact Assessments; 2 No FEAR Act updates; 

monthly reports on pending cases at HQ; and MSPB case reports. 

FY 2022

Published 8 press releases (end of maximum telework, release of the 2021 AR, arrival of 

new Board members and senior executives (4), PFR mediation pilot, and new research 

agenda); 3 Federal Register (FR) notices (reasonable accommodation, civil monetary 

penalty inflation adjustment, and service contract inventory); several documents related to 

the restoration of a quorum and the adjudication process (Board members biographies, 

update to FAQs on a quorum, ratification orders for MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ) and 

contract Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) appointments, recommended approach to 

reducing the backlog, update on Clerk’s authority for PFR withdrawal, explanation of 

docket number construction, several new precedential decisions, and reports of pending 

HQ cases); studies documents, including 3 editions of IoM, new MSPB research agenda, 

and release of 2021 MPS data; and several agency plans and reports, including the new 

Strategic Plan, the APR-APP for 2021-2023, the FY 2021 AR, the FY 2021 AFR, the FY 

2022 CBJ, FOIA reports, and 2021 AES data (from the 2021 FEVS). Clarification of 

documents appropriate for this measure is provided in the statement of the measure 

above.

Performance Goal 2B-2: Track the scope of references to MSPB’s work and 

work products.

Measure: Scope (location or identity of citing organization) of references to MSPB 

decisions, reports, newsletters, web content, or other materials in policy papers, Federal 

legislation, professional literature, EOs, the media, or other sources. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result MSPB’s work was cited 314 times in 64 sources. 

FY 2023

Target

Maintain the scope of references; consider updates to the external references database and 

ways to improve access to tools for tracking external references.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Maintain the scope of references; consider updates to the external references database and 

ways to improve the ability to track meaningful external references.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018

MSPB’s work was cited 610 times in 136 different sources. Sources of particular import 

include 2 GAO reports; OPM’s unlocktalent.gov website; posts and letters by selected 

senators and representatives; the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and 
18 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Medicine; the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA); the American 

Psychological Association; and a book on health care management.

FY 2019

MSPB’s work was cited 714 times in 129 different sources. Notable citations include a 

letter from the House Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Committee to the Secretary 

of the VA; a Congressional Research Service Report entitled Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB): A Legal Overview; and the publication Report: Symposium on the Federal Workforce for 

the 21st Century by the MITRE Corporation.

FY 2020

MSPB’s work was cited 453 times in 119 sources. Notable citations for policymakers 

include references to MSPB’s studies on sexual harassment in GAO’s report and 

testimony about sexual harassment at VA; a bipartisan, bicameral congressional letter to 

VA about sexual harassment; references to sexual harassment studies and case law in a 

briefing report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and an MSPB studies report on 

Adverse Actions cited in the CAFC decision in Sayers v. VA.

FY 2021

MSPB’s work was cited 520 times in 92 sources. Notable citations include MSPB studies 

work cited in OPM’s final regulations on Probation, Performance-Based Reduction in 

Grade, and Removal Actions; testimony by Anne Joseph O’Connell to the House 

Subcommittee on Government Operations; NAPA’s report on the review of OPM; GAO 

reports on sexual harassment, employee engagement, and gender pay differences; and a 

letter from the House Committee of Oversight and Reform to President Biden calling for 

nominations of MSPB Board members. 

FY 2022

MSPB’s work was cited 550 times in 113 sources. Notable citations include MSPB studies 

work cited in GAO reports on direct hiring in future emergencies and on sexual 

harassment in the VA; 4 academic articles in public policy journals citing use of 2016 MPS 

data or study reports on merit systems or managing the federal workforce; and the 

Partnership for Public Service’s Trustworthy: Increasing Civil Servants’ Trust at Work, citing 4 

separate study reports. MSPB will continue to measure the scope of references to 

MSPB’s work.

Management Objectives

Management Objective M1: Lead, manage, and develop employees to ensure a highly 

qualified, diverse, inclusive, and engaged workforce with the competencies to perform 

MSPB’s mission and support functions successfully. 

This objective was Met. The result for inclusion was exceeded, with an average of 81%, more than 

10% above the target of 70%. The results for competencies, diversity, and engagement were 70%, 

67%, and 71%, respectively, all within 10% of the target. 

The FY 2024 targets for all PGs are for the average percent positive to be 70% or higher. The FY 

2025 targets for all PGs are TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Performance Goal M1-1: Ensure MSPB’s workforce has the competencies needed to 

perform its mission.

Measure: Percentage of employees who report (on the FEVS or internal survey (IS)) that they 

and others in the workforce have the appropriate competencies needed to perform 

MSPB’s mission.

Current Performance Year 

FY 2023

Result Competency average = 70%.

FY 2023

Target Competency average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Competency average = 70% or higher.
19 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 FEVS Competency average = 71%.

FY 2019 FEVS Competency average = 75%.

FY 2020 Competency average = 80% (derived from the IS due to the FEVS delay).

FY 2021 Competency average = 73% (derived from the IS due to the FEVS delay).

FY 2022 Competency average = 73%.

Performance Goal M1-2: Ensure positive perceptions of workforce diversity by 

MSPB employees.

Measure: Average percentage agreement on FEVS (or IS) diversity questions.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result Diversity average = 67%.

FY 2023

Target Diversity average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Diversity average = 70% or higher. 

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 Diversity average = 61%.

FY 2019 Diversity average = 72%.

FY 2020 Diversity average = 75% (derived from the IS due to the FEVS delay).

FY 2021 Diversity average = 76% (derived from the IS due to the FEVS delay).

FY 2022 Diversity average = 68% (derived from the IS due to FEVS changes).

Performance Goal M1-3: Ensure positive perceptions of workplace inclusion by 

MSPB employees.

Measure: Average percentage agreement on IS workplace inclusion questions. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result Inclusion average = 81%.

FY 2023

Target Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 Inclusion average = 81%.

FY 2019 Inclusion average = 84%.
20 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

FY 2020 Inclusion average = 83%. 

FY 2021 Inclusion average = 86%.

FY 2022 Inclusion average = 81%.

Performance Goal M1-4: Ensure positive employee engagement.

Measure: Average percentage agreement on FEVS (or IS) engagement questions.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result Engagement Index = 71%.

FY 2023

Target Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 Engagement Index = 66%.

FY 2019 Engagement Index = 72%.

FY 2020 Engagement Index = 80%.

FY 2021 Engagement Index = 82% (derived from the IS due to the FEVS delay).

FY 2022 Engagement Index = 74%.

Management Objective M2: Modernize IT to support agency mission and 

administrative functions. 

This objective was Not Met. The results for IT reliability and internal customer service were 44% 

and 59%, respectively, both more than 10% below the target of 70%. MSPB did not meet its goal 

to implement the new e-Appeal system during FY 2023. In the second quarter of FY 2023, the 

project schedule for implementing e-Appeal shifted to the beginning of FY 2024. MSPB met both 

its cybersecurity targets, with 100% of assets scanned, and its cloud-based services goal, effectively 

replacing all legacy infrastructure with cloud-based solutions. 

The FY 2024 targets for the IT reliability and internal customer service measures are to achieve an 

average percent positive of 60% or higher. The FY 2024 target for cybersecurity is to scan 95% or 

more of assets. The FY 2024 target for modernizing the core adjudication systems is to stabilize the 

new e-Appeal system, create additional document templates and required reports, and prepare the 

system for upgrades and enhancements in FY 2025. The FY 2024 target for cloud-based services is 

that 90% of legacy networks are moved to Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SDWAN).”
21 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

The FY 2025 targets for all PGs are TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Performance Goal M2-1: Ensure reliability of MSPB IT systems, hardware, 

and applications.

Measure: Average percentage agreement on relevant IS questions.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result IT reliability average = 44%.

FY 2023

Target IT reliability average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 IT reliability average = 60% or higher.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 IT reliability average = 61%.

FY 2019 IT reliability average = 65%.

FY 2020 IT reliability average = 77%.

FY 2021 IT reliability average = 82%.

FY 2022 IT reliability average = 74%.

Performance Goal M2-2: Ensure satisfaction with internal IT support and services. 

Measure: Average percentage agreement on relevant IS questions.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result IT internal support average = 59%.

FY 2023

Target IT internal support average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2024 IT internal support average = 60% or higher.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018 IT internal support average = 72%.

FY 2019 IT internal support average = 72%.

FY 2020 IT internal support average = 80%.

FY 2021 IT internal support average = 78%.

FY 2022 IT internal support average = 68%.
22 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Performance Goal M2-3: Continuously enhance cybersecurity. 

Measure: Percentage of IT assets (any MSPB-owned items with IP addresses) scanned 

through the Department of Homeland Security’s Continuous Diagnostics and 

Mitigation program.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 100% of assets scanned. 

FY 2023

Target 90% of assets scanned.

Future Targets

FY 2024 95% of assets scanned.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2020 New goal in FY 2021.

FY 2021 Measure and FY 2022 target developed. 

FY 2022 94% of assets scanned; 100% received some scanning. 

Performance Goal M2-4: Improve efficiency of adjudication case processing. 

Measure: Modernize core adjudication applications; proportion of cases processed 

entirely electronically.

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result

Prepared for go-live at the beginning of FY 2024. Interim indicators: 84% of initial 

appeals and 97% of pleadings filed electronically.

FY 2023

Target Implement the new system.

Future Targets

FY 2024 Implement the new system.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2018

Interim indicators: 69% of initial appeals and 89% of pleadings filed electronically. 

Completed requirements development for new core business applications, including those 

to support electronic adjudication (e-adjudication), and issued the request for proposal.

FY 2019

Interim indicators: 69% of initial appeals and 89% of pleadings filed electronically. 

Awarded contract for new core business applications and began configuring electronic 

filing (e-filing) and initial appeals processing components.

FY 2020

Interim indicators: 77% of initial appeals and 93% of pleadings filed electronically, an 

increase from FY 2019 and the highest MSPB has experienced since 2013; significantly 

expanded electronic case files (ECFs) to allow for use in any FY 2020 appeal and in any 

FY 2019 case in RO/FOs where the electronic record is complete as an ECF. Continued 

development of initial appeal process on new application platform. Further modernization 

progress was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

FY 2021

Interim indicators: 84% of initial appeals and 94% of pleadings filed electronically. 

Wireframes for new application completed, and pilot release 1 completed for nextgeneration adjudication system. 
23 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

FY 2022

Interim indicators: 85% of initial appeals and 95% of pleadings filed electronically. 

Completed pilot releases 2.1 through 2.4, including user acceptance testing for each sprint, 

and 2 production data test migrations (including case media). Completed training and 

communication plans; acquired external development, technical writing, and 

communication resources; and designated internal training and communication resources 

to support “go-live” in late FY 2023.

Performance Goal M2-5: Deploy and maintain effective, secure, cloud-based services. 

Measure: Percentage of new IT investments that replace legacy on-premises technologies 

with Government-approved cloud service providers. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2023

Result 100% of new IT investments that replaced legacy systems were cloud-based.

FY 2023

Target 75% of new IT investments that replace legacy systems are cloud-based.

Future Targets

FY 2024 90% of legacy networks moved to SDWAN.

FY 2025 TBD based on FY 2024 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure effective in FY 2023.

FY 2022

All Azure.gov services transferred to Azure.com cloud. Enhancements (single sign-on for 

Azure Active Directory and Qualtrics) were made to improve the confidentiality, integrity, 

and availability of all Microsoft cloud services. A new measure beginning in FY 2023 is 

included above.
24 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish MSPB’s Objectives 

MSPB will use the following means and strategies to accomplish its objectives. These may be 

adjusted, emphasized in specific years, and carried out by one or more MSPB offices. 

Strategic Goal 1

Strategic Objective 1A (Strategic Objectives 1A-RO and 1A-HQ): Provide 

understandable, high-quality resolution of appeals, supported by fair and efficient 

adjudication and ADR processes. 

1. Implement fair approaches (e.g., policies and processes, adjudication systems, case 

management, the order in which cases are voted) to reducing the inherited inventory of 

PFRs and other cases at HQ while ensuring that each matter receives accurate and due 

consideration; track and measure success in reducing HQ inherited inventory; and include

appropriate PGs, measures, and targets in MSPB’s APPs to ensure transparency in 

accomplishing this important objective. 

2. Issue regulations as necessary to implement changes in statute, regulation, policy, or case law. 

3. Consider and implement requests for additional HC (e.g., additional Full-Time Equivalent 

(FTE)) and other resources; and use all flexibilities (e.g., details, temporary hires) to ensure 

that MSPB has sufficient adjudication staff to reduce the inherited inventory, maintain Board 

case quality, and effect high-quality and timely adjudication of initial appeals, including 

remands on PFR. 

4. Implement measures for adjudication quality in the ROs/FOs and at HQ to ensure a focus 

on appropriate aspects of the adjudication process and decision quality. Ensure an 

appropriate focus on and measurement of adjudication quality, accuracy, quantity, and speed. 

5. Modernize MSPB’s core adjudication business applications, including its e-filing platform, case 

management, document management, and document assembly capabilities as MSPB 

transitions from paper to 100% e-adjudication. Consider automated e-filing customer feedback 

methods when the new system is implemented. 

6. Continue to improve and maintain adjudication data and related systems, practices, and 

policies to ensure accurate, valid, and reliable case processing data for management and 

reporting purposes that ensure clarity and comply with standard data practices and statutes 

(e.g., GPRAMA, WPEA, and the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 

2018 (Evidence Act)). Consider hiring a Chief Data Officer.

7. Ensure sufficient information and support for appellants who file with MSPB, such as 

improving the clarity and readability (e.g., plain language and accessibility) of MSPB 

processes, forms, orders, etc.; increasing accessibility to necessary tools, especially for 

appellants who potentially belong to underserved communities; and considering ways to 

strengthen the pro bono program. Ensure consistent application of and accountability for 

adjudication processes, services, and data for all RO/FOs. 

8. Continue using automated surveys to invite feedback from participants in initial appeals and 

ADR and make changes to the process based on their feedback, as appropriate. Consider 

designing and implementing an automated survey for participants in HQ cases. 
25 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

9. Update adjudication staff performance management plans and processes as necessary to 

ensure accountability for the adjudication process, including the quality of adjudication data, 

quality of adjudication decisions, timeliness of case processing, and customer satisfaction 

with the appeals process, within available resources. 

Strategic Objective 1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions. 

1. Report compliance timeliness in the RO/FOs and ensure measures encourage long-term 

efficiency and effectiveness. Consider reporting data by agency, as appropriate. 

2. Consider internal processes and resources needed for timely and complete compliance with 

MSPB decisions and orders. Consider external approaches to improve complete and timely 

compliance, such as coordinating with individual agencies and assessing the use of existing 

and new accountability mechanisms (including changes to law or regulation). 

Strategic Objective 1C: Conduct objective, timely studies of the Federal merit systems and 

Federal HC management issues. 

1. Ensure timely publication of reports of merit systems studies. Implement appropriate 

changes to the PGs, measures, and targets in MSPB’s APPs to ensure transparency in 

accomplishing this important goal. 

2. Routinely publish findings and recommendations from merit systems studies in 

appropriate documents (e.g., research reports, research briefs, perspectives, IoM articles) 

and disseminate the documents in suitable ways to both broad-based and targeted 

audiences and stakeholders. 

3. Ensure appropriate and timely release of survey data. 

4. Sustain MSPB’s survey capability to periodically administer Governmentwide or smaller 

surveys to support the merit systems studies program. 

5. Consider ways to encourage other agencies’ support and participants’ completion of MSPB 

surveys that result in sufficient response rates, including actions to mitigate the barriers to 

survey participation. 

6. Given the high rate of retirement eligibility of MSPB studies research staff (66% between 

now and the end of FY 2024) and the 2-3 years it takes to achieve journey-level expertise, 

ensure MSPB has sufficient analytic and support staff to conduct high-quality, objective 

studies and to promote the value and impact of study findings and recommendations in 

conveying such information to relevant stakeholders. 

7. Consider developing an automated customer survey to gather feedback from those who 

download study reports from the MSPB website. 

Strategic Objective 1D: Review and act upon the rules, regulations, and significant actions 

of OPM, as appropriate. 

1. Measure success in processing cases involving the review of OPM regulations and make all 

OPM review information easily available to stakeholders by reporting relevant information 

about OPM regulation review cases in MSPB ARs. 

2. Ensure results of MSPB review of OPM significant actions are distributed to all appropriate 

recipients through the publication of MSPB ARs. 
26 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Strategic Goal 2

Strategic Objective 2A: Support and improve the practice of merit, adherence to MSPs, 

and prevention of PPPs in the workplace through successful, targeted outreach and 

engagement. 

1. Consider working with agencies involved in merit systems or Federal management (OPM, 

the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the 

Office of Government Ethics, etc.) to increase, within available resources, outreach 

opportunities designed to improve the practice and understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs 

by Federal employees, policymakers, key stakeholders, and the public. 

2. Assess and resolve issues to ensure that we can solicit and conduct targeted outreach and 

engagement, including for those on both sides of the adjudication process and other key 

stakeholder groups (e.g., affinity groups, Federal employee and management groups, legal 

groups, researchers), to improve knowledge of MSPB’s work and its role in protecting the 

merit system principles. 

3. Use effective tools to increase the proportion and enhance the quality of virtual outreach to 

improve breadth and efficiency of outreach and reduce travel costs. 

4. Consider new measures of outreach to ensure the quality and quantity of events and 

balanced access to MSPB information. 

5. Develop and implement effective and efficient methods to obtain and use feedback from a 

large proportion of outreach participants and audience members to assess outreach success, 

improve the quality of outreach, obtain suggestions for improvement, and better address 

stakeholder needs. 

Strategic Objective 2B: Advance the understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs for 

stakeholders and the public by developing and sharing informational and educational 

materials and guidance. 

1. Develop and publish educational standards or criteria, materials, and guidelines on merit, 

MSPs, PPPs, and the merit-based civil service for specific stakeholder groups and the public. 

2. Consider using social media to notify stakeholders and the public about information related 

to a merit-based civil service and MSPB’s work. 

3. Consider hiring or contracting with a communications expert to develop, implement, and 

maintain a communication and education program to improve the understanding of merit 

and MSPs, PPPs, and MSPB’s role and processes for appropriate stakeholders. 

4. Develop and make available information and materials about MSPB’s adjudication 

processes, outcomes, and legal precedents to equally support appellants’ and agencies’ ability 

to prepare and file thorough and well-reasoned arguments in appeals filed with MSPB. 

5. Consider working with other agencies, policymakers, and stakeholders to establish 

requirements or standards for periodic merit systems training for all Federal employees 

similar to the requirements for the No FEAR Act. Consider ways to encourage 

implementation of these standards in education programs for Federal employees and the 

public, such as recognizing agencies’ merit systems educational efforts.
27 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Management Objectives

Management Objective M1: Lead, manage, and develop employees to ensure a highly 

qualified, diverse, inclusive, and engaged workforce with the competencies to perform 

MSPB’s mission and support functions successfully. 

1. Ensure a continual strategic human capital planning (SHCP) process to address external and 

internal HC challenges and ensure achievement of MSPB’s most critical HC requirements. 

This may include reviewing positions and overall MSPB grade structure, identifying 

competency gaps and training needs for mission and support functions, promoting 

leadership development and succession planning, improving management of critical onedeep positions, and leveraging hiring and assessment policies and processes and the use of 

personnel flexibilities. 

2. Ensure that MSPB has a diverse and highly qualified legal, analytic/research, and support 

workforce that can effectively accomplish and support MSPB’s knowledge-based 

adjudication, studies, and other mission-related work, including the HC needed to address 

the inherited inventory while simultaneously performing other adjudication work, 

conducting studies, and filling other key vacancies. 

3. Improve agency-wide focus on employee education and development to ensure access to 

training, educational resources, and developmental experiences that provide the 

competencies necessary to perform MSPB’s work. Implement an effective and ongoing 

employee orientation program; improve employee understanding of data integrity and 

governance issues; and improve development for supervisory, managerial, and leadership 

positions. Collaborate with other agencies to obtain cost-effective training. 

4. Sustain an effective internal Diversity and Inclusion Council and provide training for agency 

employees to improve understanding of these issues. Consider measures of diversity and inclusion 

and address issues as they arise to strengthen agency culture and improve agency performance. 

5. Use results from the FEVS and MSPB’s IS, work with MSPB employees and the Professional 

Association, and apply leadership and management skills to strengthen and maintain a culture 

that supports a competent, diverse, inclusive, and fully engaged workforce. 

6. Ensure MSPB has the management policies (e.g., telework, performance management, 

continuity of operations) to enable flexible work options that support mission performance, 

workforce and workplace health and safety during emergencies, and the hiring and retention of 

talented employees. 

Management Objective M2: Modernize IT to support agency mission and 

administrative functions. 

1. Ensure MSPB has a stable and secure IT infrastructure (e.g., systems, hardware, applications) 

with sufficient resources and expertise (e.g., cybersecurity, network administration) to support 

the agency’s mission and support functions and to provide for workplace flexibilities. 

2. Modernize MSPB’s core adjudication applications, including its e-filing, case management, 

document management, document assembly, and enterprise IT capabilities to ensure 

MSPB’s successful transition from paper to 100% e-adjudication. 

3. Sustain a fully functional, cloud-based survey capability that is certified by FedRAMP, with 

flexible survey design and administration to support deployment of secure, cloud-based, 

Governmentwide surveys for merit systems studies, program evaluation, and internal and 

external customer surveys. 
28 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance

Internal Management Challenges 

The most significant issues that impacted MSPB involved efforts to reduce the inherited inventory 

of PFR cases following the restoration of a quorum in FY 2022 and the implementation of multiple 

IT modernization initiatives. These challenges were exacerbated by inadequate staffing, which soon 

may become an even greater problem due to attrition associated with high levels of retirement 

eligibility among current employees.

The PFR Inherited Inventory Caused by the Lack of a Quorum. As noted earlier, from

January 7, 2017, to March 3, 2022, the Board lacked a quorum of members and therefore could not 

vote on any PFRs of IDs. A quorum was restored on March 4, 2022, with the swearing-in of 

Raymond A. Limon and Tristan L. Leavitt as Board members. Although Member Leavitt departed 

when his term ended on February 28, 2023, Cathy A. Harris was sworn in on June 1, 2022, as the 

third Board member (and now Acting Chairman), thereby ensuring that a quorum is maintained.

Restoration of a quorum allowed MSPB to resume issuing decisions on PFRs and other cases at HQ 

and to resume issuing reports of merit systems studies. However, given the length of the time 

without a quorum, the number of cases in the inventory had reached 3,793. In FY 2023, MSPB 

made significant progress towards reducing that inherited inventory by closing 1,484 cases. This 

includes more than 75% of the oldest 1,000 cases. As of the start of FY 2024, approximately 50% of 

the inherited inventory remains, which MSPB expects to eliminate in FY 2024 and FY 2025. 

Inadequate Staffing and Retirement Eligibility. MSPB was authorized 235 FTE positions for

FY 2023 but has been unable to fully staff the agency for several years due to budget constraints. 

Based on the most recent budget limitations imposed by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, 

MSPB has put hiring actions on hold pending further attrition and is maintaining just 190 FTEs. 

Holding at this FTE level reduces MSPB’s ability to adjudicate efficiently and to adequately support 

its Research Agenda. 

Following the lengthy lack of a quorum, considerable attorney resources from OAC, the office that 

drafts the recommended decisions on which the Board members vote, were needed to update cases 

in the inherited inventory because statutes, Governmentwide regulations, and case law changed since 

the recommended decisions were originally drafted. Moreover, those attorneys have not been 

available to work cases filed more recently at HQ, slowing processing times for newer cases. In 

addition, given vacancies and the need to internally detail staff to provide essential support to other 

offices, the number of attorneys in OAC is down by 33%. Adequately staffing the legal offices is 

critical to further reducing the inherited inventory, timely processing new cases, and defending the 

Board’s decisions in court. Furthermore, MSPB is hampered from pursuing research on its

published Research Agenda by the loss of 66% of technical research staff in OPE. 

In addition to existing vacancies, by the end of FY 2025, approximately 24% of MSPB employees 

will be eligible to retire. Having nearly one quarter of employees eligible for immediate retirement 

compounds staffing challenges and portends slower case processing times and a lack of technical 

ability to complete new merit systems research and studies. Such a reduction in MSPB’s workforce 

limits the capacity for outreach and education services, which play a key role in ensuring that Federal 

agencies and their employees understand the Board’s role and processes. Educating the Federal 

workforce also improves efficiency and effectiveness throughout the Government by helping 
29 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

agencies understand and act in accordance with MSPs, avoid PPPs, and promote the overall 

efficiency of the civil service. 

IT Modernization. In FY 2019, MSPB began modernizing its core business applications, starting 

with the development of a new cloud-based e-filing and case management workflow system that is 

certified by FedRAMP.10 This updated functionality replaces several legacy systems, including 

MSPB’s e-Appeal Online, document management, and document assembly systems, which were at 

or nearing end-of-life and prevented MSPB from achieving 100% electronic adjudication of appeals. 

The new e-Appeal system was implemented in October 2023 and will continue to evolve to fully 

support internal and external stakeholder needs. MSPB has been striving to improve user experience 

by designing this enterprise application to ensure that appellants, appellant representatives, and 

agency representatives are able to easily and intuitively file appeals and pleadings and self-manage 

most aspects of their cases before the Board. This effort directly aligns with the second priority of 

the President’s Management Agenda – Delivering Excellent, Equitable, and Secure Federal Services 

and Customer Experience. 

In FY 2021, MSPB engaged in planning efforts to modernize all remaining legacy systems; upgrade 

its network architecture to support a hybrid workforce; increase internet capacity as MSPB 

transitions to cloud-based services; enhance cybersecurity consistent with EO 14028, “Improving 

the Nation’s Cybersecurity”; and transition business processes to comply with the Government’s 

transition to electronic records.

In FY 2022, MSPB began network transformation efforts to support a cloud-based environment. 

These efforts continued in FY 2023 with the migration of MSPB’s analog phone system to a cloudbased softphone platform. 

MSPB had planned to engage in several other modernization efforts in FY 2024, including a phased 

lifecycle replacement of laptops and migrating MSPB’s research and analysis tools to a cloud-based, 

software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform to improve security and reliability and reduce the complexity 

of IT services. A SaaS solution would allow for web integration so MSPB can publish dashboards

using our merit systems research and surveys. However, based on the uncertainty surrounding the 

enactment of the FY 2024 budget, these efforts are now delayed into FY 2025, but will be pursued 

then only if the enacted budget authority permits.

MSPB continues to prioritize maturation of its cybersecurity program and seeks cybersecurity 

funding to better comply with OMB requirements, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

binding operational and emergency directives, and EO 14028. Without an enhanced budget 

specifically to support cybersecurity initiatives and programs, MSPB will continue to be in a reactive 

security posture, putting the organization at risk when it could instead, with adequate resources, take 

active measures to identify and protect against threats and move to a risk-based decision-making 

model in line with Federal guidance. The threat landscape is constantly shifting, and the tools, 

capabilities, and training needed to combat threats are continuously evolving; it is essential that 

MSPB keep up.

10 See Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report, in accordance with sections 3(b) and (d) of

the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (21st Century IDEA). 
30 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

External Trends 

Among the external trends that affect MSPB’s ability to carry out its mission are changes in law, 

jurisdiction, appeals processes, regulations, and executive orders; court decisions; and budgetary 

constraints. These changes can continue to have significant impacts on MSPB workloads, processes, 

and programs for many years.

Changes in Law, Jurisdiction, Appeals Processes, Regulations, and Executive Orders. 

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA) and Subsequent Related 

Legislation. Concerns about whistleblower protection prompted the enactment of the 

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA). Subsequently, initial appeals filed in 

the RO/FOs and PFRs to the Board involving reprisal for whistleblowing or other activity which 

are protected by the WPEA have increased significantly. The WPEA and subsequent whistleblower 

case law also increased the complexity of adjudicating whistleblower cases. For example, Congress 

expanded protections for disclosures made during the course of investigations beyond those 

conducted by an agency Inspector General or the Office of Special Counsel. Pursuant to legislation 

passed in December 2017, an employee also is protected from reprisal for cooperation "with any 

other component responsible for internal investigation or review." National Defense Authorization 

Act, Pub. L. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283, 1618, § 1097 (Dec. 12, 2017) (amending, among other 

provisions, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(C)). The Board has determined that such investigative disclosures 

are protected regardless of their content. See, e.g., Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 

31, ¶ 62 (2022). Consequently, MSPB’s jurisdiction over whistleblowing—even in the absence of an 

otherwise appealable action—may now cover more actions, as well as more employees. As a result, 

the adjudication of cases under the WPEA has become more challenging, time-consuming, and 

resource-intensive. 

Expansion of Whistleblower Appeal Rights for Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

Employees. On December 23, 2022, Congress enacted Public Law 117-263, the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2023. The NDAA amended 5 U.S.C. § 2303, allowing FBI 

employees to appeal a final Department of Justice (DOJ) determination or corrective action order to 

the MSPB pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1221. See Public Law 117-263, § 5304(a), codified at 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2303(d). On February 2, 2024, the Department of Justice issued final regulations providing 

whistleblower protections for FBI employees. The regulations include a new 28 C.F.R. § 27.7 that 

informs complainants of the right to file an appeal with MSPB. The regulation took effect on 

March 4, 2024. In FY 2023, MSPB received one potential whistleblower claim from an FBI 

employee. See Tumblin v. Department of Justice, MSPB No. DC-1221-23-0398-W-1 (Initial Dec. July 28, 

2023; final on Sept. 1, 2023).

The NDAA for FY 2022 (P.L. 117-81). The NDAA for FY 2022 included two provisions with 

potential bearing on MSPB operations. Section 1105 amends the guidelines for reductions in civilian 

positions at Department of Defense (DOD) (10 U.S.C. § 1597(e)) by changing the determination 

criteria for employee separation from being “primarily on the basis of performance” to “account[in] 

for employee performance ... among other factors as determined by the Secretary.” It is still unclear 

how this change will be interpreted by MSPB and other tribunals. Section 1106 repeals the two-year 

probationary period for Title 10 employees, returning to the prior one-year requirement. This repeal, 

effective December 31, 2022, provides MSPB appeal rights to DOD civilian employees who have 

completed one year of service, and thus may lead to a slight increase in MSPB’s caseload.
31 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Expansion of Appeal Rights for Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) at the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA). On June 3, 

2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas issued a memorandum supporting the TSA workforce 

through improving the TSO employment experience. Specifically, the Secretary directed a review 

and evaluation of whether its current standards align with Title 5 personnel protections. Expecting 

legislation that would provide MSPB appeal rights, TSA began to afford TSOs similar appeal rights 

to MSPB as other TSA employees. On September 13, 2021, MSPB entered into a reimbursable 

agreement with TSA to adjudicate such appeals. In FY 2022, MSPB adjudicated 52 appeals under 

their newly established rights, pending legislation that would otherwise increase our nonreimbursable workload. The agreement was renewed for FY 2023, and 61 appeals have been 

adjudicated as of September 30, 2023. The TSA reimbursable agreement was renewed for FY 2024.

Fair Chance Act. OPM issued regulations, effective October 2, 2023, to implement the Fair 

Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019 (Fair Chance Act), 5 U.S.C. §§ 9201-9206. These 

regulations create a new appeal right to MSPB for employees who have been charged with violating

the Fair Chance Act. With some exceptions, the Fair Chance Act prohibits Federal agencies and 

Federal contractors acting on their behalf from requesting that an applicant for Federal employment 

disclose criminal history record information before the agency makes a conditional offer of 

employment to that applicant. Under OPM’s new regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 920.202, it is a violation of 

the Fair Chance Act if an agency employee requests information about an applicant’s criminal 

history prior to making a conditional offer of employment to that applicant (unless the position is 

exempted or excepted from the Fair Chance Act). For a first violation, OPM shall issue a written 

warning to the employee; a second violation could result in a suspension of not more than 7 days.11

Therefore, a first or second violation would not result in an appealable action. A third or subsequent 

violation, however, could result in a suspension of more than 7 days as well as civil monetary 

penalties.12 If OPM issues a suspension for more than 14 days or combines a suspension and a civil 

penalty, the employee has the right to appeal to MSPB under 5 C.F.R. § 754.204.

These external trends and issues bear on MSPB operations both directly and indirectly. They are 

likely to affect MSPB’s appeals workload, necessitate changes in MSPB procedures, and require 

additional MSPB resources. They drive home the importance of MSPB’s responsibility to conduct 

studies of Federal merit systems and to exercise the agency’s statutory authority to review OPM’s 

significant actions to ensure that the Federal workforce continues to be managed in accordance with 

MSPs and free from PPPs. These external trends magnify the importance of MSPB’s responsibility to 

promote merit and educate employees, supervisors, managers, and leaders on the merit systems;

MSPs; PPPs; and MSPB appellate procedures, processes, and case law. MSPB’s educational and 

outreach functions improve workforce management over time and may reduce the time and cost of 

processing appeals for agencies, appellants, and the Government. 

11 See 5 C.F.R. § 754.202(a) & (b)(1). 

12 See 5 C.F.R. § 754.202(b)(2)-(b)(5).
32 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation 

Performance Measurement: Verifying and Validating Performance Information

Most quantitative measures of MSPB’s adjudication performance (case processing in the RO/FOs 

and HQ, and compliance case processing in the ROs/FOs) previously came from the automated 

case management system known as Law Manager, which tracked location, timeliness, outcomes, and 

other information about cases filed with MSPB. However, with the implementation of the new 

e-Appeal system, MSPB will need to create new reports to capture this data going forward. To 

maintain data quality, MSPB will need to build checks for completeness, quality control, and 

verification and validation of performance data into this system using controlled user access, 

limitations in field data entry, operating guides, and processes for cross-checking and correcting data 

throughout and at the end of the FY. Data fields to support new adjudication PGs or measures may 

be added to the system, and new processes and training provided to users, as necessary. 

Results for the PGs related to merit systems studies, review of OPM regulations and significant 

actions, and educational/informational materials can be verified and validated by examining MSPB’s 

public website. MSPB employees provide data for outreach events and for external references to our 

work in databases accessible to them on the agency’s intranet. Additional information about external 

references to our work is obtained through structured news searches in Westlaw. Outreach and 

external references are examined and summarized at the end of the year by MSPB’s Performance 

Improvement Officer (PIO). Data for MSPB’s PGs related to HC management, IT reliability, and 

internal IRM customer service are collected using OPM’s FEVS or MSPB’s IS. The IS also provides 

customer satisfaction results for internal agency programs. The PIO designs, administers, analyzes, 

and reports the results of these surveys, including those needed for PG measures. Each year, FEVS 

data are posted on MSPB’s website, and IS data are posted on the intranet. Other quantitative and 

qualitative performance measures are reported by MSPB’s program offices. For example, IRM 

ensures that data for the new PGs on cybersecurity and cloud-based services are verified, validated, 

and reported to the PIO. 

In FY 2022, MSPB implemented its new data integrity policy. In addition to WPEA data, this policy 

applies to certifying performance data reported in MSPB’s APR-APPs and ARs. MSPB will expand 

this policy to other adjudication and performance data, as appropriate. Data integrity, the 

transformation to 100% e-adjudication, and new core business applications continually underscore 

the importance of continuous improvement in performance measurement. 

Program Evaluation 

MSPB programs broadly affect Federal merit systems and Federal management, and they generate 

significant value for Federal agencies and the public. Program evaluation is critical to ensuring that 

MSPB continues to achieve its mission effectively and efficiently to provide value now and in the 

future. Governmentwide emphasis on program evaluation has increased in recent years. The 

Evidence Act and the Federal Data Strategy also are relevant to agency program evaluation and 

performance measurement.13

Although MSPB is committed to high-quality program evaluation, the agency currently lacks the 

resources to fully support the previously planned evaluation activities (i.e., SHCP and agency futureof-work in FY 2023). Ensuring the ability to perform our statutory mission and comply with 

13 Public Law (Pub. L.) 115-435, and see https://strategy.data.gov.
33 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

GPRAMA requirements and recent program evaluation guidance from OMB could require 

acquiring resources and enhancing program evaluation staff. A relatively small increase in MSPB’s 

program evaluation resources and staff would likely yield a large return in efficiency and cost savings 

for MSPB. In turn, this would improve the value MSPB brings to agencies, Federal employees, 

individual parties to cases filed with MSPB, and the public. 
34 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2023

In accordance with the WPEA, MSPB is providing this information about whistleblower appeals in 

FY 2023. This report reflects cases processed from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023, 

and includes data on receipts and outcomes of initial appeals, and receipts of PFRs in which 

violations of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and/or 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) were 

alleged.14 Adjudicating appeals is an ongoing process, and appeals are often closed in a different 

year than they were received. Therefore, the figures for cases received (i.e., Figure 1 for initial 

appeals and Figure 9 for PFRs) and outcomes of cases processed (i.e., Figures 3, 6, and 10) in any 

given year will not be comparable.

There generally are two types of appeals that can involve claims of reprisal under §§ 2302(b)(8) and 

(b)(9). An otherwise appealable action (OAA) appeal involves an action that is directly appealable to 

the Board, such as a removal, demotion, or suspension of more than 14 days. In such an appeal, 

MSPB will review both the appealable action and the claim of reprisal for engaging in protected 

activity as an affirmative defense. An individual right of action (IRA) appeal—which may be based 

on either an action that could have been appealed directly to the Board or on a less severe action 

that is not directly appealable—is limited to the issue of whether the action was taken because of 

protected activity. In this kind of case, the individual can appeal the claim of reprisal to the Board 

only if they first file a complaint with OSC, and OSC does not seek corrective action on the 

individual’s behalf.15 

Figure 1 displays data on the number and 

types of appeals that MSPB received in 

FY 2023 in which violations of 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) were alleged. 

Appeals received by RO/FOs fall into three 

categories: initial appeals, remanded appeals, 

and refiled appeals. Initial appeals are new 

appeals filed by an appellant for the first time 

and thus represent new cases alleging reprisal. 

Remanded appeals are appeals that were 

previously adjudicated by a RO/FO but 

which have been remanded on PFR by the 

Board at HQ or by a Federal circuit court on 

appeal of a final Board decision. Refiled 

appeals are appeals that are refiled—by the 

appellant or on the AJ’s own motion—

because they were previously dismissed 

without prejudice (DWOP) to refiling. A 

DWOP is a procedural option that allows for 

the dismissal and subsequent refiling of an appeal, often to allow the parties more time to prepare 

for the litigation of their cases or to explore settlement talks or mediation. Remanded or refiled 

14 This report generally refers to claims raised under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9); however, this report does not include claims raised under 

§ 2302(b)(9)(A)(ii), as 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a) allows appellants to seek corrective action from MSPB as a result of prohibited personnel 

practices described only in § 2302(b)(8) or § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). 

15 Complaints in IRA appeals go first to OSC for review and, if warranted, OSC conducts an investigation. According to OSC, it is 

during this process that agencies often choose to take corrective action or settle an issue informally before OSC files a case with 

MSPB. MSPB adjudicates IRA appeals that have had the chance to be resolved while at OSC but for which OSC did not seek 

corrective action. 

36 19

210

76 71

281

112 90

491

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Refiled Appeals Remanded

Appeals

Initial Appeals

Figure 1: FY 2023 Appeals Received in 

Regional/Field Offices with Claims Under 

5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or 2302(b)(9)

OAAs IRAs Total
35 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

appeals are not new cases; they are separately docketed appeals that are related to initial appeals filed 

earlier in the same FY or in a prior FY. If the related initial appeal was filed in the same FY, it would 

be included in the number of initial appeals. Because the RO/FOs must process and issue decisions 

in remanded and refiled appeals, these appeals are considered part of MSPB’s workload of appeals 

containing claims under §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or 2302(b)(9). 

An appellant can file an appeal alleging a 

violation of § 2302(b)(8) only, a violation of 

§ 2302(b)(9) only, or a violation of both.16

Figure 2 depicts the number of appeals, both 

OAA appeals and IRA appeals, that were 

decided in FY 2023 in the RO/FOs and 

whether the appeal contained a claim(s) 

under § 2302(b)(8) only; a claim(s) under 

§ 2302(b)(9) only; or claims under both 

§§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9). 

Figure 3 breaks down the totals displayed in 

Figure 2 for OAA appeals by depicting the 

outcomes of OAA appeals decided in the 

RO/FOs in which violations of 

§§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) were alleged. It 

is important to note that the outcome of an 

OAA appeal is separate from the outcome of 

a § 2302(b)(8) or (b)(9) claim.

17 An OAA 

appeal can be dismissed for a variety of 

reasons that have nothing to do with the 

merits of any reprisal claim raised therein. 

For example, the appeal may be untimely 

filed, the action or the appellant might be outside of the Board’s appellate jurisdiction, or the 

appellant might have made a binding election to challenge the action in another forum (such as 

through negotiated grievance or arbitration procedures). This figure includes appeals that were 

withdrawn and appeals that were DWOP.18 Cases are settled at the discretion of both parties. 

Settlement agreements consist of terms acceptable to both parties; thus, the agreement resolves the 

dispute in a way that allows both parties to achieve some positive result. 

16 Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) prohibit reprisal against an employee or applicant for employment based on different types of 

protected activity. Section 2302(b)(8) prohibits reprisal because of any disclosure that the employee or applicant reasonably believes 

evidences certain enumerated categories of wrongdoing. Employees who allege a violation of (b)(8) are typically referred to as alleging 

“reprisal for whistleblowing.” Section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) prohibits reprisal because of the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance 

right with regard to a violation of § 2302(b)(8). Section 2302(b)(9)(B) prohibits reprisal because of testifying for or otherwise assisting 

any individual in the exercise of any right under § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) or (ii). Section 2302(b)(9)(C) prohibits reprisal because of 

cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General (or any other component responsible for internal investigation or 

review) of an agency or OSC. Section 2302(b)(9)(D) prohibits reprisal for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual 

to violate a law, rule, or regulation. 

17 The WPEA requires MSPB to report outcomes of appeals; however, when possible, MSPB also reports and summarizes the 

outcomes of claims. 

18 Note that DWOP cases are listed here for completeness, but they do not reflect the final outcomes of whistleblower issues. DWOP 

cases can be refiled for final review of these issues. 

163

47

64

234

3

186

0

50

100

150

200

250

Appeals with

Only a

2302(b)(8)

Claim

Appeals with

Only a

2302(b)(9)

Claim

Appeals with

both (b)(8) &

(b)(9) Claims

Figure 2: Appeals Decided in the Regional 

and Field Offices That Raised Claims 

Under 2302(b)(8) and/or 2302(b)(9)

OAAs IRAs
36 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

In a case in which an appellant raises both §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) claims, the outcomes of those 

claims may differ.19 Therefore, we are reporting the outcome of both (b)(8) and (b)(9) claims for 

cases in which both claims were raised and the OAA appeal was adjudicated on the merits, as 

depicted in Figures 4 and 5 below.

Figure 4 displays the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(8) claims within the 50 OAA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in the 

RO/FOs.20 21 It includes both the 

30 OAA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with a § 2302(b)(8) claim only 

and the 20 OAA appeals adjudicated on 

the merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) and 

(b)(9) claims, as referenced in Figure 3.

The fact that corrective action is not 

ordered in an OAA appeal does not 

necessarily mean that the appellant 

obtained no relief. For example, in a 

removal appeal in which the appellant 

alleges reprisal, the Board could reverse 

the removal action because the agency 

failed to prove that the appellant 

committed the charged misconduct, or 

it could mitigate the removal penalty, while also finding that the appellant failed to establish reprisal. 

In any appeal involving a reprisal claim, the Board shall order corrective action for the reprisal claim 

if the appellant has demonstrated that: (1) they made a protected disclosure; (2) the agency has taken 

19 For example, an appellant may allege that they were removed in violation of § 2302(b)(8) for disclosing to their supervisor their 

belief that a practice at the agency endangered public health. In the same appeal, they also may allege that they were removed in 

violation of § 2302(b)(9) for testifying in a coworker’s MSPB appeal which involved remedying a violation of § 2302(b)(8). In such a 

case, the appellant may decide to withdraw their § 2302(b)(9) claim but prevail on their (b)(8) claim. Under that scenario, the outcome 

of the (b)(9) claim would be “Withdrawn,” whereas the outcome of the (b)(8) claim would be “Corrective Action Ordered.”

20 Percentages have been rounded up to the next whole number. 

21 Figure 4 also includes a category of “Miscellaneous Results,” which represents OAA appeals that were adjudicated on the merits but 

wherein the § 2302(b)(8) claims in those cases were not adjudicated on the merits. An AJ may fully adjudicate an OAA appeal on the 

merits but not adjudicate the reprisal claim for a variety of reasons. For example, an AJ may strike a reprisal claim as a sanction for an 

appellant’s repeated failure to comply with the AJ’s orders or determine that the Board is precluded from considering the reprisal 

claim because a security clearance determination is at issue. 

Figure 3: Outcomes in OAA Appeals Decided in Regional/ Field Offices 

Types of 

Claim(s) Raised DWOP Settled Withdrawn

Dismissed 

(other than 

DWOP) 

Adjudicated 

on the Merits Total

Section 2302(b)(8) Only 18 39 3 73 30 163

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 4 12 6 13 12 47

Both Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 8 11 2 23 20 64

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered, 1, 

2%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered -

Agency 

Would Have 

Taken Same 

Action, 14, 

28%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Protected 

Disclosure, 

15, 30%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Contributing 

Factor, 6, 

12%

Reprisal 

Claim 

Withdrawn, 

5, 10%

Miscellaneous 

Results, 9, 18%

Figure 4: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) Claims in 

OAA Appeals Adjudicated on the Merits in the 

Regional and Field Offices
37 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

or threatened to take a personnel action against them; and (3) their protected disclosure was a 

contributing factor in the personnel action. However, corrective action shall not be ordered if, after 

a finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor, the agency demonstrates by clear and 

convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such 

disclosure.

Figure 5 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(9) claims within the 32 OAA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in the 

RO/FOs. This figure includes the 

12 OAA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with a § 2302(b)(9) claim only 

and the 20 OAA appeals adjudicated 

on the merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) 

and (b)(9) claims, as referenced in 

Figure 3. Figure 4 divides the outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) claims within OAA appeals adjudicated on 

the merits into subcategories of “Corrective Action Not Ordered” (i.e., no contributing factor, no 

protected disclosure, and the agency would have taken the same action). However, Figure 5 displays 

the outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) claims within OAA appeals adjudicated on the merits only in the 

broader categories of “Corrective Action Ordered,” “Corrective Action Not Ordered,” “Claim 

Withdrawn,” and “Miscellaneous Results.”22 As explained above with respect to Figure 4, an AJ may 

fully adjudicate an OAA appeal on the merits but not adjudicate the reprisal claim for a variety of 

reasons. As previously noted, the outcome of an appeal is separate from the outcome of a 

§§ 2302(b)(8) or (b)(9) claim.

Figure 6 breaks down the totals displayed in Figure 2 for IRA appeals by depicting the outcomes of 

those cases decided in the RO/FOs in which violations of §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) were alleged. 

In an IRA appeal, an appellant “shall seek corrective action from OSC before seeking corrective 

action from the Board.”23 If an IRA appeal is dismissed for “failure to exhaust” (i.e., because the 

appellant failed to first seek corrective action from OSC), the appellant can file a new IRA appeal 

after fulfilling the administrative exhaustion requirement.24 Figure 6 also includes IRA appeals that 

were dismissed without prejudice.25 In addition, as in OAA appeals, cases can be settled at the 

22 The “Miscellaneous Results” category represents OAA appeals that were adjudicated on the merits but for which the § 2302(b)(9) 

claims in those cases were not adjudicated on the merits. 

23 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). 

24 In Figure 6, the category of “Dismissed, Other Grounds” would include IRA appeals in which a violation of only § 2302(b)(9) was 

alleged and the appeals were dismissed for failure to exhaust. There were no cases in this category this year. 

25 Note that DWOP cases are listed here for completeness, but they do not reflect the final outcomes of whistleblower issues. DWOP 

cases can be refiled for final review of these issues. 

Figure 5: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) Claims in OAA Appeals 

Adjudicated on the Merits in Regional/Field Offices 

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered

Claim 

Withdrawn

Miscellaneous 

Results Total

1 27 0 4 32

Figure 6: Outcomes in IRA Appeals Decided in Regional/Field Offices 

Type of Claim(s) DWOP Settled Withdrawn

Dismissed, 

Failure to 

Exhaust

Dismissed, 

Other 

Grounds

Adjudicated 

on Merits Total

Section 2302(b)(8) Only 59 40 11 12 83 29 234

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 0 2 0 0 0 1 3

Both Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 41 39 11 8 50 37 186
38 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

discretion of both parties. Settlement agreements consist of terms acceptable to both parties, thus 

the agreement resolves the dispute in a way that allows both parties to achieve some positive result.

Figure 7 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(8) claims within the 66 IRA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in 

the RO/FOs.26 It includes the 

outcomes of the 29 IRA appeals 

adjudicated on the merits with a 

§ 2302(b)(8) claim only and the 

37 IRA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) and 

(b)(9) claims, as referenced in Figure 6. 

Just as in an OAA appeal, the Board 

shall order corrective action for the 

reprisal claim in an IRA appeal if the 

appellant has demonstrated that:

(1) they made a protected disclosure; 

(2) the agency has taken or threatened 

to take a personnel action against 

them; and (3) their protected 

disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action. However, corrective action shall not be 

ordered if, after a finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor, the agency 

demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action 

in the absence of such disclosure. 

Figure 8 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(9) claims within the 38 IRA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in 

RO/FOs. This includes the outcomes 

of the one IRA appeal adjudicated on 

the merits with a § 2302(b)(9) claim 

only and the 37 IRA appeals 

adjudicated on the merits with both 

§§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) claims, as 

referenced in Figure 6. While Figure 7 divides the outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) claims within IRA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits into subcategories of “Corrective Action Not Ordered” (i.e., no 

contributing factor, no personnel action, no protected disclosure, and the agency would have taken 

the same action), Figure 8 displays the outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) claims within IRA appeals 

adjudicated on the merits only in the broader categories of “Corrective Action Ordered,” 

“Corrective Action Not Ordered,” “Claim Withdrawn,” and “Miscellaneous Results.” 

26 Percentages have been rounded up to the next whole number. 

Figure 8: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) Claims in IRA Appeals 

Adjudicated on the Merits in Regional/Field Offices 

Corrective 

Action Ordered

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered

Claim 

Withdrawn

Miscellaneous 

Results Total

8 30 0 0 38

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered, 15, 

23%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered -

Agency 

Would Have 

Taken Same 

Action, 20, 

30%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Protected 

Disclosure, 

17, 26%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Personnel 

Action, 4, 6%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Contributing 

Factor, 9, 

14%

Miscellaneous 

Results, 1, 1%

Figure 7: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) Claims in IRA 

Appeals Adjudicated on the Merits in the 

Regional/Field Offices
39 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

An appellant or an agency dissatisfied 

with an AJ’s initial decision on an 

OAA or IRA appeal may file a PFR 

with the full Board at MSPB 

headquarters. Figure 9 shows the 

number of PFRs the Board received 

(on both OAA and IRA appeals) 

involving §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) 

claims. 

In addition, on June 22, 2022, 

Member Raymond Limon, Member 

Tristan Leavitt, and Vice Chairman 

and Acting Chairman Cathy Harris 

issued an updated policy reiterating that the Clerk of the Board may exercise the delegated authority 

to grant a withdrawal of a PFR when requested by a petitioner if there is no apparent untimeliness of 

the petition and if no other party objects to the withdrawal.27 In FY 2023, the Office of the Clerk of 

the Board granted 6 requests to withdraw PFRs in cases that involved §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or 

(b)(9) claims.

Figure 10 shows the outcomes of PFR cases involving §§2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) claims. It is 

important to note that PFR outcomes are the decisions of the Board relative to the initial decision 

issued by the AJ, not relative to the initial action taken by the agency. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the 

Board may issue a decision that denies or grants the PFR and affirms, reverses, or vacates, in whole 

or in part, the initial decision. Whether a PFR is denied or granted may have nothing to do with the 

reprisal claim. If the Board’s decision is final, it will include a notice of appeal rights to the appellant. 

Alternatively, the Board may remand the appeal to the AJ for further proceedings, in which case the 

Board’s decision is not yet final and no appeal rights are due. The Board vacates an initial decision 

when it issues a final decision that reaches a different outcome from that reached in the initial 

decision. 

During FY 2023, the 

Board issued decisions 

on 422 PFRs of appeals 

that involved 

§§2302(b)(8) and/or 

(b)(9) claims. Eighty-two 

of these appeals were 

remanded. In OAA 

appeals, the scope of the remand may or may not pertain to the reprisal claim. Therefore, when a 

PFR in an OAA appeal is remanded to the RO/FO, it may present an opportunity for reprisal 

claims within the case to be re-evaluated. In IRA appeals, the only issue before the Board is whether 

a personnel action was taken in reprisal for engaging in protected activity. Settlements at the PFR 

level are voluntary and are reached at the discretion of the parties. The settlement agreements 

contain terms that are acceptable to both parties, thus the agreement resolves the dispute in a way 

that allows both parties to achieve some positive result. During FY 2023, the Board issued one order 

27 See https://mspb.gov/appeals/files/Policy_Regarding_Withdrawal_of_a_Petition_for_Review_1515773.pdf. This policy was 

issued following a similar policy that was signed on May 11, 2018, by former Vice Chairman and Acting Chairman Mark A. Robbins.

Figure 10: Outcomes of Petitions for Review in Cases with Claims 

Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) 

Settled Dismissed Affirmed

Remanded to 

Regional/Field 

Office

Reversed Vacated Withdrawn No Majority Total

40 24 264 82 10 1 0 1 422

50

81

131

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

OAA IRA Total

Figure 9: Petitions for Review Received in 

Appeals with Claims Under 

5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9)
40 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

in a case with a claim under 2302(b)(8) and/or(b)(9) where there was no majority; thus, the initial 

decision became the final decision of the Board. See 5 C.F.R. § 1200.3(b).
41 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Appendix B: Information Required under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(i)(1) and (2)

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7701(i)(1) and (2), MSPB provides FY 2023 case processing 

information. In FY 2023, MSPB processed 4,572 total cases decided in the ROs/FOs (not including 

ALJ cases). Of the 4,135 IDs and addendum cases processed in the RO/FOs, 74% were processed 

in 120 days or less.28

MSPB’s quorum was restored on March 4, 2022, and the Board began the effort to reduce the 

inventory it inherited from the 5-year lack of a quorum. For FY 2023 and FY 2024, MSPB 

eliminated the HQ timeliness target because average processing time for HQ will be extremely high 

in the early years of inventory reduction, will not convey helpful information about HQ case 

processing or inventory reduction, and will not be useful in managing the process. Instead, MSPB 

set a target to issue decisions in at least 1,000 cases in FY 2023, including decisions in at least 750 of 

the oldest cases pending at the beginning of FY 2023. The Board issued decisions in 1,484 cases in 

FY 2023, including in 905 of the oldest cases pending before the Board as of October 1, 2022 (the 

beginning of FY 2023). Additionally, in FY 2023, 14 PFR cases were withdrawn by order of the 

Clerk of the Board under a policy effected by the Board on June 28, 2022.

29 These cases did not 

involve a decision issued by the Board so are not included in any case processing statistics.

In general, each case is adjudicated on its merits consistent with law and legal precedent and in a 

manner consistent with the interest of fairness, which is achieved by assuring due process and the 

parties’ full participation at all stages of the appeal. Under normal circumstances, several factors 

contribute to the length of time it takes to resolve a particular case. At the initial appeal level, it takes 

time to issue notices, respond to discovery and other motions, subpoena documents and people, 

hold conferences with the parties, arrange for and question witnesses, present evidence, conduct 

hearings, and, often, participate in ADR efforts. When there is good cause to do so, the parties may 

be granted additional time to preserve due process. Adjudication also may require more time when 

cases involve new or particularly complex legal issues, numerous factual issues, or the interpretation 

of new statutory or regulatory provisions. In addition, at the PFR level, when Board members do 

not agree about the disposition of PFR issues or cases, the need to resolve disagreements or prepare 

separate opinions may increase the time needed for adjudication. Additional factors that affect 

processing time are discussed above in the performance results section of this APR-APP.

28 In June 2017, Congress set a 180-day limit for MSPB AJs to issue decisions in certain VA adverse action cases (38 U.S.C. § 714(d)). 

In FY 2023, there were 46 section 714 cases decided in the RO/FOs. This number includes 6 Board remands and 1 Court remand. 

The initial appeals generally involve mixed-case appeals that went through the EEO process, or actions put on hold by the VA’s 

internal investigation process, Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection. The number does not include attorney fees, 

petitions for enforcement or damages cases.

29 See https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/files/Policy_Regarding_Withdrawal_of_a_Petition_for_Review_1515773.pdf.
42 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report30

Acting Chairman

January 23, 2024 

The Honorable Shalanda D. Young 

Director 

Office of Management and Budget 

725 17th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

RE: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report 

Dear Director Young, 

In accordance with sections 3(b) and (d) of the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (21st 

Century IDEA), I am pleased to provide the Merit Systems Protection Board's (MSPB) report on 

modernizing our public-facing digital services. 

MSPB has two primary websites for public engagement: our electronic filing website, eAppeal at

https://e-appeal.mspb.gov, and our agency website at https://www.mspb.gov. Both websites are 

part of a broader information technology (IT) modernization effort that began in fiscal year (FY) 

2018 with requirements development for updating and consolidating our legacy case management, 

document assembly, and document management systems, among others. Our websites rely on and 

interact with the documents and information in these legacy systems. As such, each is a priority for 

modernization to meet the requirements in section 3(a) of 21st Century IDEA. 

In FY 2019, MSPB contracted with Tyler Technologies, a FedRAMP-certified provider of case 

management software and IT services, to begin this effort. To date, 90% of the required application 

functionality for electronic filers (e-filing) is in production, allowing MSPB e-filers to successfully file 

and monitor their appeals. The remaining required e-filing functionality includes enhancements to 

existing functionality and is scheduled for deployment in FY 2024. The total projected cost for 

modernizing the efiling portion of the application is $900,000. 

30 In accordance with the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experiences Act, (Pub. L. 115-336). 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

 Office of the Chairman 

 1615 M Street, N.W. 

 Washington, DC 20419

 Phone: (771) 210-1633 ; Fax (202) 653-7208 
43 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

MSPB began modernizing its agency website in FY 2019 with the goal of adopting U.S. 

Web Design Standards, improving search functionality using Search.gov, leveraging the General 

Services Administration's Digital Analytics Program, and providing an updated, consistent 

appearance across devices, including mobile. The new website was released to agency employees for 

testing during FY 2020 and again in FY 2021 with public release in July 2021. The new website fully 

complies with all eight elements in section 3(a) of 21st Century IDEA. The cost for the MSPB 

website was $57,000. Cloud hosting for the public site is an additional $7,500 per year. 

We are pleased with our progress in modernizing these public-facing digital services, and we look 

forward to completing the implementation of the modernized e-filing system in FY 2024. Should 

you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Craig Thomas, Chief 

Information Officer, at 202-254-4429 or craig.thomas@mspb.gov.

Sincerely, 

 Cathy A. Harris 

Acting Chairman 
44 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

Appendix D: More Information about MSPB

MSPB’s Role, Functions, and Scope of Responsibilities 

During congressional hearings on the CSRA before it was passed in 1978, various members of 

Congress testified and described the role and functions of MSPB, stating that “[MSPB] will assume 

principal responsibility for safeguarding merit principles and employee rights” and be “charged with 

insuring adherence to merit principles and laws” and with “safeguarding the effective operation of 

the merit principles in practice.”31 MSPB inherited CSC’s adjudication functions and provides due 

process to employees as an independent, third-party adjudicatory authority for employee appeals 

including adverse actions (such as removals, furloughs, and certain suspensions) and retirement 

decisions. For matters within its jurisdiction, MSPB was granted the statutory authority to develop 

its adjudicatory processes and procedures, issue subpoenas, call witnesses, and enforce compliance 

with MSPB decisions. Congress also granted MSPB broad new authority to conduct independent, 

objective studies of the Federal merit systems and Federal HC management issues to ensure that 

employees are managed under MSPs and free from PPPs. In addition, Congress granted MSPB the 

authority and responsibility to review the rules, regulations, and significant actions of OPM. After 

the CSRA, Congress expanded MSPB’s jurisdiction to hear appeals under a variety of other laws, 

giving it authority over a wide range of appeals.32 Under various statutes, MSPB serves as an 

independent, third-party adjudicatory authority for over two million Federal civilian employees in 

almost every Federal department and agency, applicants for Federal civilian jobs, and certain U.S. 

Postal Service employees and uniformed military service members.33 

Findings and recommendations from MSPB’s merit systems studies help to strengthen merit and 

improve public management and administration in the Federal executive branch. Although 

MSPB’s studies are focused on the Federal workforce and merit systems, they generally are 

applicable to the management of Federal legislative branch and judicial branch employees and 

even to public employees at the state and local levels. Through its authority to review and act on 

OPM rules, regulations, and significant actions, MSPB protects the merit systems and helps ensure 

that Federal employees are managed in adherence with MSPs and free from PPPs. This authority 

includes employees in all agencies for which OPM sets policy, beyond the specific individual 

employees who may file appeals with MSPB. MSPB’s customers, partners, and stakeholders 

include a wide range of policymakers; Federal agencies and councils; Federal employees and 

managers and groups that represent them; appellants, appellant representatives, and agency 

representatives; professional legal groups, academia, and management research organizations; and 

good-government groups.

31 Legislative History of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, 

March 27, 1979, Volume No. 2, pages 5-6. 

32 Beyond those included in 5 U.S.C. chapters 43 and 75, and all those set out at 5 C.F.R. Part 1201.3; the Federal Employee 

Retirement System Act of 1986, 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e), (Pub. L. 99-335), Title I, §§ 101, 100 Stat. 571 (1986); the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, (Pub. L. 103-353), codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335; whistleblower appeals including 

IRA appeals involving personnel actions listed in 5 C.F.R. § 1209.4(a) and OAAs are listed in 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.3 (a)(1) through (a)(11), 

and as amended by the WPEA (Pub. L. 112-199); the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012; the VA Accountability and 

Whistleblower Protection Act, (Pub. L. 115-41), enacted on June 23, 2017; the Follow the Rules Act (Pub. L. 115-40), enacted on 

June 14, 2017; the authority for a single Board member to extend OSC stay requests (Pub. L. 115-42); the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick 

Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (Pub L. 115-73), enacted on October 26, 2017; and most recently, section 5721 of the NDAA 

of FY 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92), enacted on December 20, 2019. 

33 This includes most Federal employees under 5 U.S.C. and others such as certain Veterans Health Administration employees 

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7403(f)(3) and RIF actions affecting a career or career candidate appointee in the Foreign Service pursuant to 

22 U.S.C. § 4010a. 
45 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

MSPB Offices and Their Functions 

MSPB is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has six ROs and two FOs located throughout the 

United States. The agency is authorized up to 235 FTE employees to conduct and support its 

statutory duties. Other Federal agencies also perform many support functions for MSPB through 

interagency agreements.

The Board members, consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Member, are appointed by 

the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve overlapping, nonrenewable 7-year terms. No more 

than two of the three Board members can be from the same political party. The Board members 

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

administrative officer. Except for the EEO Director, who reports directly to the Chairman, the 

Directors of the following offices report to the Chairman through the Executive Director.

The Office of the Administrative Law Judge adjudicates and issues IDs in corrective and 

disciplinary action complaints (including Hatch Act complaints) brought by OSC, proposed agency 

actions against ALJs, MSPB employee appeals, and other cases assigned by MSPB. In FY 2021, the 

functions of this office were performed by ALJs at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. 

Coast Guard under interagency agreements.

The Office of Appeals Counsel conducts legal research and prepares proposed decisions for the 

Board to consider for cases in which a party files a PFR of an ID issued by an AJ and in most other 

cases decided by the Board. The office prepares proposed decisions on interlocutory appeals of AJ 

rulings; makes recommendations on reopening cases on the Board’s own motion; and provides 

research, policy memoranda, and advice to the Board on legal issues.

The Office of the Clerk of the Board receives and processes cases filed at MSPB HQ, rules on 

certain procedural matters, and issues Board decisions and orders. It serves as MSPB’s public 

information center; coordinates media relations; operates MSPB’s library and online information 

services; and administers the FOIA, privacy, and accessibility programs. It also certifies official 

records to the courts and Federal administrative agencies, and manages MSPB’s records systems, 

website content, and the Government in the Sunshine Act program.

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

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. The EEO Director also coordinates MSPB’s Diversity and Inclusion Council. 

The Office of Financial and Administrative Management administers MSPB’s budget, 

accounting, travel, time and attendance, HR, procurement, property management, physical 

security, and general services functions. It develops and coordinates internal management 

programs, including reviewing agency internal controls. It also administers the agency’s servicing 

agreements with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Finance Center (NFC) 

for payroll services, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) for 

accounting services, and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for HR

management services.

The Office of the General Counsel, 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; prepares proposed decisions for the Board to enforce a final MSPB decision or 
46 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

order, in response to requests to review OPM regulations, and for other assigned cases; and 

coordinates the agency’s legislative policy and congressional relations functions. The office also 

drafts regulations, conducts MSPB’s ethics program, and performs the inspector general function,

including planning and directing audits and investigations. 

The Office of Information Resources Management develops, implements, and maintains 

MSPB’s IT systems and enterprise applications and manages MSPB’s cybersecurity program. 

These services help MSPB manage its caseload efficiently and carry out its administrative and 

research responsibilities.

The Office of Policy and Evaluation 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 widely distributed. The office provides information and advice 

to Federal agencies on issues that have been the subject of MSPB studies. The office also carries out 

MSPB’s statutory responsibility to review and report on the significant actions of OPM. The office

conducts special projects and program evaluations for MSPB and has responsibility for executing

MSPB’s functions required by GPRAMA.

The Office of Regional Operations oversees the agency’s six ROs and two FOs that receive and 

process initial appeals and related cases. This office provides guidance to AJs and oversight of the 

initial appeals adjudication process. It also manages MSPB’s MAP and conducts the agency’s PFR 

settlement program. AJs in the RO/FOs are responsible for adjudicating assigned cases and for issuing 

fair, well-reasoned, and timely IDs. 

MSPB Organizational Chart

CHAIRMAN MEMBER

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,

Oakland, and

Washington, D.C.

VICE CHAIRMAN

Field Offices

Denver and 

New York

Financial and 

Administrative 

Management

Information 

Resources 

Management

Executive 

Director

HR management services are provided by the USDA’s APHIS Business Services. Payroll services 

are provided by USDA’s NFC. Accounting services are provided by the Department of the 

Treasury’s BFS. In FY 2022, ALJ functions were performed by ALJs employed by the Federal 

Trade Commission and the U.S. Coast Guard under reimbursable interagency agreements. 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
47 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

How MSPB Brings Value to the Merit Systems, the Federal Workforce, and the Public

The Federal merit systems are based on widely accepted organizational management practices and 

values that have been developed and reinforced through historical experience. There are costs and 

benefits associated with merit-based management of the Federal workforce. Ensuring merit system 

values, such as fairness in all personnel matters; hiring and advancement based on qualifications and 

performance; protection from arbitrary personnel decisions, undue partisan political influence, and 

reprisal; and assurance of due process incurs necessary costs (e.g., in time and effort) that are not 

comparable to the private sector. For example, the Federal Government may require more time and 

effort to fill a Federal job than a private employer as a result of: (1) requirements for public notice of 

vacancies to support the merit principle of fair and open competition to attain a workforce from all 

segments of society; (2) fair and rigorous assessment of applicants consistent with the merit principles 

of equal opportunity and selection based on relative ability; and (3) review and documentation of 

applicant eligibility and entitlements in compliance with laws and public policies, such as those 

relating to veterans’ preference and the disabled. These processes improve the overall quality of the 

workforce and help ensure that Federal jobs and job protections are provided to the most highly 

qualified applicants. This, in turn, helps reduce the likelihood that the Government will need to 

undertake the process to remove employees in the future. These management costs are necessary to 

ensure the goal of a strong, highly qualified, consistently staffed, merit-based civil service that serves 

in the public’s interest over the long term rather than at the pleasure of political leaders. 

Despite our relatively small size and budget, MSPB provides enormous value to the Federal 

workforce, Federal agencies, and the American public by helping to ensure a more effective and 

efficient merit-based civil service that provides better service to the public. MSPB adds value by 

providing superior adjudication services, including ADR, which ensures due process and results in 

decisions that are based in law, regulation, and legal precedent, not on arbitrary or subjective 

factors. MSPB’s adjudication process is guided by reason and legal analysis, which are hallmarks of 

both the legal system and the merit systems. The quality of MSPB’s decisions is evidenced by the 

high affirmance rate of its decisions by the courts. Centralized adjudication of appeals by a neutral, 

independent third party improves the fairness and consistency of the process and resulting 

decisions and is more efficient than separate adjudication of appeals by each agency. The body of 

legal precedent generated through adjudication and the transparency and openness of the 

adjudication process provide guidance to agencies and employees on proper behavior and the 

ramifications of improper behavior. This information, shared through outreach, our regulations, 

and extensive material on our website, improves the long-term effectiveness and efficiency of the 

civil service and supports better adherence to MSPs and prevention of PPPs. This adjudication 

information also improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the adjudication process by helping 

parties understand the law and learn how to prepare thorough and legally sound cases. Strong 

enforcement of MSPB decisions ensures timely, effective resolution of current disputes and 

encourages more timely compliance with future MSPB decisions. 

MSPB’s high-quality, objective merit systems studies provide value by identifying and assessing 

innovative and effective merit-based management policies and practices and recommending 

improvements. MSPB studies have shown that improved hiring and selection, improved merit-based 

management, and greater employee engagement lead to a highly qualified Federal workforce, improved 

organizational performance, and better service to the public. Results, findings, and recommendations 

from MSPB’s merit systems studies function are shared through reports, research briefs, newsletters, 

and other articles posted to our website and through outreach. For example, one MSPB report 

provides information on and dispels misconceptions about due process in the civil service, which is 
48 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

useful to policymakers, managers, legal practitioners, and other stakeholders. Effective management 

processes also help reduce the occurrence and costs of PPPs, which negatively affect agency and 

employee performance. Review of OPM’s significant actions, rules, and regulations protects the 

integrity and viability of the civil service and merit systems and provides benefits similar to the merit 

systems studies. Better merit-based management helps improve employee and agency performance. It 

also logically leads to less employee misconduct and fewer adverse actions, which reduces costs in 

terms of fewer PPPs and fewer unsubstantiated appeals. This provides indirect value to the American 

taxpayer in decreased Governmentwide costs and increased confidence that the Government is doing 

its job well and appropriately managing its workforce.

The Merit System Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices

The CSRA codified for the first time the values of the merit systems as MSPs and delineated 

specific actions and personnel practices that are PPPs because they are contrary to merit system 

values.34 MSPs include the values of fair and open competition for positions, with equal 

opportunity to achieve a workforce from all segments of society; merit-based selection for jobs; 

advancement and retention based on qualifications and job performance; fair and equitable 

treatment in all aspects of management; equal pay for work of equal value; and training that 

improves organizational and individual performance. MSPs also include protection from arbitrary 

action, favoritism, or coercion for political purposes, and protection against reprisal for lawful 

disclosure of violations of law and waste, fraud, and abuse. MSPs further state that the workforce 

should be used effectively and efficiently and that all employees should maintain high standards of 

integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest. 

PPPs state that employees shall not take or influence others to take personnel actions that: 

discriminate for or against an individual or applicant on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national 

origin, age, disability, marital status, or political affiliation; consider information beyond the person’s 

qualifications, performance, or suitability for public service; or coerce political activity or commit 

reprisal for refusal to engage in political activity. These actions also may not deceive or willfully 

obstruct an individual’s rights to compete for employment; influence a person to withdraw from 

competition to affect the prospects of another; or grant preference beyond that provided by law. The 

actions also may not be based on or create nepotism; in retaliation or reprisal for whistleblowing—the 

lawful disclosure of a violation of law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement or gross waste of 

funds, abuse of authority, or danger to public health or safety; in retaliation or reprisal for an 

employee’s exercise of his or her rights and legal protections, or assistance to another in the person’s 

exercise of his or her rights; or based on past conduct that does not adversely affect the job. The 

actions also must not knowingly violate veterans’ preference requirements; violate MSPs; or 

implement or enforce a nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement, which lacks a specific statement 

that its provisions are consistent with and do not supersede applicable statutory whistleblower 

protections. On October 26, 2017, Congress created a 14th PPP, which prohibits access of medical 

records as part of, or to further, any conduct related to any other PPP.35 On December 20, 2019, 

section 5721 of the NDAA for FY 2020 expanded the definition of disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(b)(8) to include disclosures to Congress.36

34 5 U.S.C. § 2301 and § 2302, respectively. And see MSPB’s website for further information on MSPs and PPPs. 

35 The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, (Pub. L. 115-73), amends 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) to add “(14) access 

to the medical records of another employee or applicant for employment as a part of, or otherwise in furtherance of, any conduct 

described in paragraphs (1) through (13).” 

36 The NDAA for FY 2020, (Pub. L. 116-92). 
49 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

List of Common Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

AES Annual Employee Survey

AFR Annual Financial Report

AJ Administrative Judge

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

APHIS USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APR-APP Annual Performance Report and Annual Performance Plan

AR MSPB Annual Report

BFS Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Service

CAFC Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

CBJ Congressional Budget Justification

CSC Civil Service Commission

CSRA Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 

DWOP Dismissal Without Prejudice

e-Adjudication Electronic Adjudication

e-Filing Electronic Filing

ECF Electronic Case Files

EEO MSPB’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

EHRI Enterprise Human Resources Integration

EO Executive Order 

FAIR Federal Activities Inventory Reform

FAM MSPB’s Office of Financial and Administrative Management

FAQs Frequently Asked Questions

FDS Federal Data Strategy

FedRAMP Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FO MSPB Field Office

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FR Federal Register

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accountability Office

GPRAMA Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010

HC Human Capital

HR Human Resources

HQ Headquarters

ID Initial Decision

IoM MSPB's Issues of Merit newsletter

IRA Individual Right of Action (type of whistleblower appeal)

IRM MSPB’s Office of Information Resources Management 

IS MSPB’s Internal Survey
50 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

IT Information Technology

MAP MSPB’s Mediation Appeals Program

MPS MSPB’s Merit Principles Survey

MSP Merit System Principles

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NFC USDA’s National Finance Center

No FEAR Act Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act

OAA Otherwise Appealable Action (type of whistleblower appeal)

OAC MSPS’s Office of Appeals Counsel

OCB MSPB’s Office of the Clerk of the Board

OGC MSPB’s Office of General Counsel

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation

OPM Office of Personnel Management

ORO MSPB’s Office of Regional Operations 

OSC Office of Special Counsel

PFR Petition for Review of an Initial Decision

PG Performance Goal

PIO Performance Improvement Officer

PPP Prohibited Personnel Practices

Pub. L. Public Law

QRT Quarterly Review Team

RIF Reduction in Force

RO MSPB Regional Office

SDWAN Software-Defined Wide Area Network

SHCP Strategic Human Capital Plan 

TBD To Be Determined

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSO Transportation Security Officer

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WPEA Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012
51 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2023-2025 March 8, 2024

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20419

www.mspb.gov - @USMSPB on X