U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Congressional 

Budget

Justification

FY 2020

Submitted to the

Committee on Appropriations

March 2019
Table of Contents

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

Internal Challenges Affecting MSPB Operations........................................................................................1

External Events Affecting MSPB Operations.............................................................................................3

FY 2020 Budget Request ..........................................................................................................7

Appropriation Language..................................................................................................................................7

Strategic Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................................7

FY 2020 Request by Object Class..................................................................................................................8

Schedule O Object Classification.................................................................................................................12

Schedule Q Employment Summary ............................................................................................................13

About MSPB...................................................................................................................................................13

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

Providing and Using Administrative Data for Statistical Purposes.........................................................13

Adjudication ....................................................................................................................................................14

Mediation Appeals Program ........................................................................................................................15

Merit Systems Studies and OPM Oversight ...............................................................................................15

Publications Issued in FY 2017 and FY 2018 ............................................................................................16

Reports Prepared for Board Member Review............................................................................................17

Information Technology................................................................................................................................18

Human Resources ..........................................................................................................................................18

Financial Management ...................................................................................................................................18

Equal Employment Opportunity .................................................................................................................19

Organization Chart.........................................................................................................................................20
1

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Congressional Budget Justification

Fiscal Year 2020

Introduction

Over the last year, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) has worked to 

improve the effectiveness and long-term impact of its missions function in response to the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) memorandum M-17-22, “Comprehensive Plan for Reforming the 

Federal Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce.” After considering the 

significant internal and external factors affecting the agency, MSPB exercises its statutory budget 

authority to submit this bypass request for fiscal year (FY) 2020 of $46,835,000, which includes a 

$2,345,000 transfer from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Civil Service Retirement 

and Disability Fund. This request is in lieu of the President’s Budget Request for FY 2020 of 

$42,265,500, including $2,345,000 from OPM’s Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

The increase of $4,569,500 from the President’s Budget Request accurately funds our authorized

full-time equivalents (FTE), and provides the level necessary for critical functions and 

comprehensive human capital planning, and a modest increase in related object classes. The

requested increase accurately reflects MSPB’s funding needs to address operational and management 

priorities ranging from personnel to modernizing our information technology (IT). Additionally, 

this increase incorporates base adjustments and built-in changes for the increase in civilian pay and 

2% increase for domestic inflation.

If the President’s Budget Request of $42,265,500—which represents a 10% cut to our FY 2019

funding level—is enacted, MSPB will have to cut its workforce since personnel costs represent 

approximately 80% of our budget. Additionally, this will affect performance results for: (1) average 

processing time for both initial appeals and petitions for review (PFR); (2) the scope and number of 

merit system studies produced; (3) MSPB’s review of OPM’s significant actions and rules and 

regulations; (4) conducting outreach; (5) internal program evaluation; (6) our ability to conduct 

surveys in support of merit systems studies and reports, obtaining customer feedback; (7) our critical 

IT modernization efforts; and (8) a potential relocation of our Washington, D.C. Headquarters as a 

result of lease expiration. All of these issues are overshadowed by the backlog of approximately 

2,000 PFRs before the Board due to the lack of quorum since January 2017.

Internal Challenges Affecting MSPB Operations

As referenced above, MSPB recognizes the financial challenges facing our Government and the 

increasing pressure to cut Federal spending. In addition to the immediate and direct negative impact 

a 10% cut in appropriations will have on MSPB’s operations, there are a number of internal 

challenges impacting MSPB’s operations. 

Impact of MSPB Lack of Quorum of Board Members

At the time of this request, MSPB is without Board Members following the expiration of Vice 

Chairman Mark A. Robbins’ term at the end of February 2019. The President’s nominees for 

Chairman and Member are pending with the U.S. Senate. The agency continues to operate under its 
2

Continuity of Operations Plan, and MSPB’s General Counsel is the agency’s acting chief executive 

and administrative officer. Since January 2017, MSPB has been without a quorum of Board 

Members. Although agencies and appellants can file PFRs of administrative judges’ (AJ) decisions 

with the Board, by law the Board is prohibited from issuing decisions on PFRs unless it has a 

quorum. Historically, when a quorum is present the Board issues on average approximately 90 PFR 

decisions each month. When the Board lost its quorum on January 8, 2017, there were 528 cases 

(PFRs, PFR addendum cases, and original jurisdiction cases) pending at MSPB Headquarters; since 

that time, and as of February 1, 2019, 1,535 additional cases (PFRs, PFR addendum cases, and 

original jurisdiction cases) were filed at MSPB Headquarters. Therefore, even if the Board was to 

have a quorum today, there would be 2,0411 PFRs, PFR addendum cases, and original jurisdiction 

cases pending at MSPB Headquarters, for which 1,725 have proposed decisions drafted by career 

staff and are ready for action by the Board Members. Importantly, once a quorum is restored and 

the Board can issue decisions again, we anticipate significant additional workload for MSPB based 

on past precedent. Historically, a percentage of the Board’s PFR decisions in a typical year are 

remands to the AJs, which will result in further adjudication. Additionally, with the arrival of new 

Board Members whose priorities may differ from those of the previous Board, there likely will be a 

period when a higher-than-normal percentage of proposed decisions are returned to the Office of 

Appeals Counsel, whose staff drafts proposed PFR decisions, for additional review or action. 

Moreover, the Board cannot release study reports to the President and Congress without a quorum 

or promulgate regulations to reflect congressionally-mandated changes in our jurisdiction or 

procedures. MSPB conducts objective, independent research that supports strong merit systems 

that protect the public’s interest in a high quality, diverse professional workforce managed under the 

MSPs and free from PPPs. This respective function, in conjunction with MSPB’s adjudication of 

individual appeals and authority to review OPM regulations, ensures that the Board oversees Federal 

merit systems at both the systemic and individual levels.

MSPB research, summarized in formal reports to the President and Congress, addresses the full 

range of issues in managing the Federal workforce, such as recruitment and selection, employee 

engagement, supervision, performance management, adverse actions, and fair and equitable 

treatment of Federal employees. 

Impact on MSPB’s Human Capital Planning

MSPB received enacted budgets for FY 2014-2019 that allowed it to build and sustain a stable and 

sufficient workforce to perform its statutory functions effectively and efficiently. Although the 

Board has been able to develop the workforce, nearly 25% of MSPB employees, including 

approximately 36% of our AJs and adjudication managers involved with processing initial appeals, 

are eligible to retire in the next two years. Budget reductions will result in our inability to backfill 

these and other critical vacancies, which will contribute to the slowing of case processing times. In 

addition, we will be limited in our ability to provide the outreach and education services that are 

essential to the effectiveness and efficiency of our adjudication and studies functions.

 

1 During this period, the Board has been able to process parties’ requests to withdraw their PFRs in certain limited 

circumstances and stay requests from the Office of Special Counsel. As a result, the Board processed 22 cases during 

the period since it lost its quorum. 
3

Impact of Modernizing MSPB’s Information Technology

In FY 2019, MSPB will begin modernizing its core business applications, e.g., developing a new case 

management workflow system to process and track each initial appeal and PFR filed with the 

agency. This updated functionality will replace MSPB’s e-Appeal Online system and modernize our 

document management and document assembly capabilities. The new system will replace legacy 

systems for these functions, which are at or nearing end-of-life and prevent MSPB from achieving

100% electronic adjudication of appeals. The implementation of the new applications will continue 

through FY 2020 as we operate our legacy systems in parallel with the modernized applications prior 

to cutover. In addition, this will allow us to decommission most of our on-premises data center 

since our modernized applications will be in the cloud. Finally, we will prepare for a lifecycle refresh 

of laptop computers and peripherals in FY 2019 to coincide with the sunset of Windows 7 and the 

need to upgrade our operating system to realize the capabilities of our new core business 

applications.

External Events Affecting MSPB Operations

There are several external matters that have occurred and may occur which have impacted and could

further impact MSPB’s operations in the future, which will require additional resources. 

Impact on MSPB – Enactment of Congressional Legislation 

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)

Since the enactment of the WPEA in FY 2013, individual right of action (IRA) appeals adjudicated

in the regions and PFRs to the Board have increased significantly.

2

In fact, 25% of all PFRs filed in 

FY 2018 involved claims covered by the WPEA. The WPEA also increased the complexity of 

adjudicating whistleblower cases. Prior to the WPEA, many whistleblower claims failed because the 

disclosure at issue was made to the wrongdoer or was made in the appellant’s normal course of 

duties. Such findings were made at the first step of a three-step analysis, and thus simplified 

adjudication of the issues. Pursuant to the WPEA, however, such disclosures are now protected,

and the legal analysis must proceed to the second and frequently third steps. Accordingly, a hearing 

is required in a greater number of cases and the legal analysis required for whistleblower cases under 

the WPEA is lengthier, more complex, and more time-consuming. Further expansions of employee 

rights under the WPEA have been enacted by Congress, as described below. It is probable that the 

number of WPEA-related cases on appeal and PFRs will continue to grow in the coming years.

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2017 expanded MSPB’s jurisdiction. It 

enacted the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, adding to the possible grounds on which an 

employee might file an appeal based on reprisal for whistleblowing because it makes placement on 

investigative leave for “not less than 70 work days” a personnel action. The new law also gave

MSPB jurisdiction over an additional personnel action. Under 5 U.S.C. § 3322(a) and (c), if an 

 

2 According to MSPB’s Annual Reports from FY 2008 through FY 2012 (pre-WPEA enactment), the Board adjudicated 

an average of 67 IRA PFRs each of those fiscal years. Although MSPB has lacked a quorum since January 2017, and thus 

has been unable to issue decisions on PFRs, we have nonetheless tracked receipts of IRA PFRs. As reported in MSPB’s 

APR-APP for FY 2017-2019, in FY 2017, MSPB received 147 IRA PFRs. Similarly, the regions adjudicated an average 

of 562 whistleblower cases per year from FY 2008 through FY 2012, and 716 per year in FY 2013 through FY 2018, a 

27% increase.
4

employee who is under investigation resigns prior to the investigation’s resolution, and the 

investigation results in an adverse finding about that employee, the agency head must make a 

permanent notation about this in the employee’s official personnel file. Because this notation 

mechanism is mandatory and appealable, it is anticipated that numerous additional appeals and PFRs

will result each year from this statute. The Act also provides appeal rights to dual status employees 

of the National Guard whose separation results from certain causes of action.

Follow the Rules Act

In 2017, Congress enacted the Follow the Rules Act. Prior to this Act, the general rule was that an 

employee must first comply with an order and then, if the individual disagrees with it, register their

complaint or grievance later (except in certain limited circumstances, such as when obedience would 

cause them irreparable harm, or the order would require them to violate a law). The Follow the 

Rules Act now permits an employee to refuse to obey an order that would require them to violate a 

law, rule, or regulation. This includes agency-specific rules and regulations, and it is anticipated that 

this will be the subject of a great deal of litigation when agencies attempt to discipline employees for 

refusing to obey an order. 

Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017

The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, among other things, created a 14th

prohibited personnel practice over which MSPB has jurisdiction in whistleblower reprisal cases—it 

prohibits 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 the other prohibited personnel 

practices listed in the 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). A claim that access was made in furtherance of conduct 

described at (b)(8) and (b)(9) (except (b)(9)(ii)) would allow for MSPB review. Further, this law 

requires agency heads to propose disciplinary action against supervisors who are found to have 

engaged in whistleblower retaliation. Disciplinary action against the retaliating individual may lead to 

more appeals and PFR filings with MSPB. 

Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017

In 2017, Congress enacted the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Accountability and 

Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (2017 DVA Act). This law essentially replaced the Veterans 

Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 for purposes of the DVA’s Senior Executive Service 

appeals and changed the requirements for appeals of adverse actions taken against DVA employees, 

including how MSPB processes those appeals. Among the Act’s other significant changes, it lowers 

the standard of proof for all DVA adverse actions from preponderant to substantial evidence and

may eliminate MSPB’s ability to mitigate penalties. Lowering its burden of proof and removing the 

possibility of mitigation would significantly increase the DVA’s chances of prevailing in MSPB

appeals, which may lead it to take more appealable actions, in turn increasing appeals and PFRs 

from DVA employees.

Further, 38 U.S.C. § 731(a) provides for mandatory disciplinary actions against supervisory DVA 

employees “whom the Secretary, an AJ, the [MSPB], Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an 

adjudicating body provided under a union contract, a Federal judge, or the Inspector General of the 

Department determines committed a prohibited personnel action.” MSPB has jurisdiction over 

suspensions of more than 14 days, demotions, or removals taken under 38 U.S.C. § 731(a). For the 

purposes of this new basis for taking adverse actions against DVA supervisory employees, the Act 

also expands the definition of what MSPB has previously viewed as a covered personnel action from 
5

those listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 to include matters like conducting a negative peer review, opening a 

retaliatory investigation, or taking a personnel action against an employee relating to participating in 

an audit or investigation by the Comptroller General. As a result, DVA may take more disciplinary 

actions against supervisors and managers, which may lead to more initial appeals and PFRs filed 

with MSPB.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

Numerous additions to MSPB’s jurisdiction were made in the OSC reauthorization section of the 

NDAA for FY 2018. Section 1097(c)(1)(A) expands protected activity under 5 U.S.C. § 

2302(b)(9)(C) from cooperating with or disclosing information to an agency’s Inspector General to 

now include “any other component responsible for internal investigation or review.” Further, 

pursuant to § 1097(c)(1)(B), disclosures made before an individual is appointed or applied for a 

position are now protected (5 U.S.C. § 2302(f)(1)(F)). Accordingly, more whistleblower reprisal 

appeals and PFRs will likely result.

All Circuit Review Act of 2018

As part of the WPEA, on a pilot basis, Congress permitted appellants with cases involving 

whistleblower reprisal or other activities protected by the WPEA to appeal MSPB’s decisions to any 

Federal circuit court with competent jurisdiction, rather than to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) alone, as had been the case previously. On July 7, 2018, and 

retroactive to November 26, 2017, Congress made permanent the authorization for appellants to file 

petitions for judicial review of MSPB’s decisions in WPEA-covered cases with any Federal circuit 

court with competent jurisdiction. This will complicate adjudication of WPEA-covered appeals at 

the regional and PFR levels because rather than being bound to follow legal precedent from one 

court—the Federal Circuit—MSPB is now subject to being bound to follow the legal precedent 

from multiple Federal circuit courts, which may conflict with one another.

Summary of Statutory Changes Affecting the Board

In summary, we believe that, in light of the external factors outlined above, the new Board Members 

can realistically expect to receive approximately 1,200 new PFRs in FY 2020 (not including the cases 

that are already before the Board) and that the number and complexity of appeals received in the 

regional and field offices may also increase. To be prepared to face these challenges while 

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

there is a sufficient number of AJs and Headquarters adjudication staff (who draft the proposed 

PFR decisions for the Board Members) who have the necessary competencies, knowledge, and 

training to perform their work efficiently. Additionally, these many statutory changes make it 

essential to have a strong studies program to ensure that the Federal workforce continues to be 

managed under the MSPs and free from PPPs.

Impact on MSPB – Workload Resulting from Government-wide Budget Reductions

It is unclear whether Government-wide budget reductions will occur in FY 2020 and beyond. If 

they do, the budget decrease will potentially cause furloughs, early retirement incentives (Voluntary 

Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP)), and the 

increased use of reductions in force (RIFs) by agencies, all of which would lead to an increase in 

appeals and PFRs because such actions may be appealed to MSPB. In addition, MSPB could be 

looking at the same scenario if we are held to a 10% budget reduction from our FY 2019 
6

appropriation level. This will have a devastating impact on MSPB’s ability to meet the goals outlined 

in our Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan for FY 2020.

Impact on MSPB – Increase in Federal Employee Retirements

Among other changes in the demographics of the Federal workforce, the number of Federal 

employees eligible to retire, and the number of employees being added to the retirement rolls are

increasing. As noted in the MSPB Annual Performance Report-Annual Performance Plan (APRAPP) for FY 2018-2020, the number of retirement appeals filed with MSPB rose each year from 

2011 to 2015. OPM’s retirement claims are up nearly 16% from FY 2017, which means our appeals 

and PFRs for retirement cases will likely increase as OPM processes those retirements.

Impact on MSPB – Presidential Executive Orders

Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent with Merit System Principles

Under Executive Order (EO) 13839, “agencies shall not agree to erase, remove, alter, or withhold 

from another agency any information about a civilian employee’s performance or conduct in that 

employee’s official personnel records, including an employee’s Official Personnel Folder and 

Employee Performance File, as part of, or as a condition to, resolving a formal or informal 

complaint by the employee or settling an administrative challenge to an adverse personnel 

action.” The quoted provision of EO 13839 appears to disallow not only “clean record”

settlements, i.e., settlements in which the appellant resigns in return for the agency removing from 

the appellant’s record documentation of the adverse personnel action the appellant suffered, but also 

any settlement agreement in which an action is mitigated, changed to a no-fault reason, or in any way 

changed or corrected without admission of error by the agency. Clearly, that provision drastically 

limits the potential for reaching agreement and settling cases on terms both parties might otherwise 

find appropriate. This will decrease the number of settlements the parties before MSPB might reach 

and increase the number of hearings and the amount of related processing AJs will have to conduct 

in those cases that otherwise may have settled.
7

FY 2020 Budget Request

Appropriation Language

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

to Reorganization Plan Numbered. 2 of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and the 

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

authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 3109, rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and 

elsewhere, hire of passenger motor vehicles, direct procurement of survey printing, and not to 

exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation expenses, $44,490,000, to remain available 

until September 30, 2021, and in addition not to exceed $2,345,000, to remain available until 

September 30, 2021, for administrative expenses to adjudicate retirement appeals to be transferred 

from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts to be determined by the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board. 

The Board has authority to adjudicate appeals from a final administrative action or order affecting 

the rights or interests of an individual under 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d) (the Civil Service Retirement System) 

and 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e) (the Federal Employees’ Retirement System). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8348(a)(3), the Fund is made available, subject to such annual limitation as Congress may 

prescribe, for any expenses incurred by the Board in the administration of such appeals.

Strategic Goals and Objectives

Our FY 2020 Congressional Budget Justification is structured on the basis of the Board’s Strategic 

Plan. The agency’s performance goals cover the critical components of two strategic goals, and our 

performance measures support the Board’s ability to manage and report performance over time. 

The strategic goals and objectives are:

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. 

1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions. 

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

management issues.

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

Management, as appropriate.

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

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

Personnel Practices.
8

Strategic Objectives: 

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

Federal merit systems laws and regulations.

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

workplace through successful outreach.

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

of educational standards, materials, and guidance established by MSPB.

FY 2020 Request by Object Class

MSPB’s FY 2020 request of $46,835,000 includes the OPM transfer of $2,345,000 from the Civil 

Service Retirement and Disability Fund and reflects no increase in funding as compared to the FY 

2019 enacted level. With this level of funding, the Board will continue to maintain quality services in 

support of the agency functions and have the ability to continue to meet the goals and objectives of 

the strategic plan in an effective and efficient manner. Any reductions will significantly impact 

MSPB’s ability to meet its mission in protecting the MSPs and promoting an effective Federal 

workforce free of PPPs.

As a result of OMB’s memorandum M-17-22, which requires Federal agencies to recognize savings, 

MSPB has worked diligently to identify and/or address reforms to reduce costs. In meeting the 

requirement of this guidance, adequately funding the Board is critical to protecting the Federal merit 

systems, ensuring due process, promoting the MSPs and preventing PPPs Government-wide. 

A discussion of our changes from the FY 2019 Enacted level is outlined below:

Personnel Compensation & Benefits – an increase of $1,150,000

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

11 Personnel Compensation $27,000 $27,960 $960

12 Benefits $7,700 $7,890 $190

Approximately 80% of MSPB’s funding is for personnel compensation and benefit expenses, which 

make up the largest amount of our budget request. The increase of funding represents the cost to 

maintain the 235 FTE staffing level. As MSPB recognizes the increasing pressure to reduce costs,

our flat-line budget request incorporates proposed Federal pay increases. Any reduction in

personnel compensation and benefit resources will adversely affect our ability to hire and maintain a 

highly qualified workforce. The 235 FTE level is necessary to perform the mission-critical work of 

the agency.
9

Travel & Transportation of Persons – no change

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

21 Travel & Transportation 

of Persons $280 $280 $0

As travel costs have stabilized over the past three years due to our increased efforts to use video 

teleconferencing, no change is requested in MSPB’s budget request. There is still a need for AJs to 

travel to hearing sites located a considerable distance from the various regional offices. Additionally, 

as a result of the WPEA and the passage of the All Circuit Review Act, which extends to all U.S. 

circuit courts, jurisdiction over appeals covered by the WPEA, MSPB’s attorneys may be required to 

travel to various Federal courts of appeals to represent the agency—something that was rarely

required before the enactment of the WPEA. We have little control over the number of hearings or 

oral arguments that might require travel.

Transportation of Things – no change

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

22 Transportation of Things $35 $35 $0

This category covers freight related costs and various courier services.

Rent, Communications, & Utilities – a decrease of $181,000

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

23 Rent, Communications & 

Utilities $4,465 $4,284 ($181)

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

in our Washington, D.C. Headquarters; as well as all of our regional and field offices. Our request 

includes an $181,000 decrease based on projected decrease in the Headquarters’ rent costs.
10

Printing – no change

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

24 Printing $75 $75 $0

Two Government Publishing Office (GPO) printing programs (copying case files and printing our 

Issues of Merit newsletters) are used by MSPB. Though the expense is minimal, it is essential to the 

work of the agency and is specifically designed for MSPB.

Other Contractual Services – a decrease of $247,000

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

25 Other Contractual 

Services $3,685 $3,438 ($247)

This object class includes the Agency’s Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSA) with the U.S.

Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS) for accounting, purchasing, and travel-related 

services; our RSA with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) for personnel services; and the National Finance Center (NFC) for payroll services. 

Other RSAs included in this object class fund are Administrative Law Judges (agreements with the 

U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Trade Commission) as well as agreements with the National Archives 

and Records Administration for records storage.

Additionally, this category includes court reporting services, employee training, IT hardware and 

software maintenance renewals, software license renewals, operation and maintenance of non-IT 

equipment, and miscellaneous services. Our request includes a decrease of $247,000 in other 

contractual services resulting from IT applications transitioning to the cloud, along with minimal

savings through our interagency agreements.
11

Supplies & Materials – an increase of $25,000

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

26 Supplies & Materials $150 $175 $25

An increase of $25,000 in supplies & materials is being requested to meet the inflationary increases 

in FY 2020.

Equipment – a decrease of $747,000

MOC Description

FY 2019

Enacted

(000)

FY 2020

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2019

(000)

31 Equipment $1,100 $353 ($747)

In the past, MSPB was able to replace equipment such as servers, laptops, copiers, printers, 

scanners, and video teleconferencing equipment that was damaged or end of life. As a result of 

budget restrictions, IT modernization, MSPB is decreasing the equipment line item by $747,000. 

However, MSPB will allocate funding to replace equipment as it breaks down or exceeds its useful

life.
12

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

FY 2018 

Actual

FY 2019

Enacted

FY 2020

Request Change

Direct Obligations:

Personnel Compensation $26,605 $27,000 $27,960 $960

Civilian Personnel Benefits 7,793 7,700 7,890 190

Travel of Persons 189 280 280 0

Transportation of Things 43 35 35 0

Rental payments to GSA 3,664 3,925 3,625 (300)

Rental Payments to Others 60 65 65 0

Communications, Utilities, and 

Miscellaneous Charges 531 475 594 119

Printing and Reproduction 35 75 75 0

Other Services 1,458 1,425 1,313 (112)

Other Purchases of Goods and 

Services from Government 

Accounts 1,651 1,650 1,494 (156)

Maintenance of Facilities 9 35 35 0

Maintenance of Equipment 304 575 596 21

Supplies & Materials 110 150 175 25

Equipment/Lease Improvement 985 1,100 353 (747)

Direct Obligation. . . $43,437 $44,490 $44,490 $0

Reimbursable Obligations. . . 2,345 2,345 2,345 0

Total New Obligations. . . $45,782 $46,835 $46,835 $0
13

Schedule Q - Employment Summary

FY 2018 

Actual

FY 2019

Enacted

FY 2020

Request Change

Direct:

 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 199 220 220 0

Reimbursable:

 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 15 15 15 0

Total. . . 214 235 235 0

About MSPB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

successor to the Commission; OPM to serve as the President’s agent for Federal workforce 

management policy and procedure; and the Federal Labor Relations Authority to oversee Federal 

labor-management relations. The CSRA also codified for the first time the values of the merit 

systems as the MSPs and defined PPPs.

Board Organization

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

nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve overlapping, non-renewable 7-year 

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

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

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

through the Executive Director. The agency has its Headquarters in Washington, D.C. with six 

regional and two field offices located throughout the United States in which AJs adjudicate cases at 

the first level, akin to a trial court.

For FY 2019 the agency was funded at 235 Full-time Equivalents (FTEs) to conduct and support its 

statutory duties. 

Providing and Using Administrative Data for Statistical Purposes

MSPB does not have administrative datasets with the potential for statistical use as outlined in OMB 

M-14-06, “Guidance for Providing and Using Administrative Data for Statistical Purposes.” 

However, statistical data can be found in the Board’s Annual Reports and are available at 

www.mspb.gov. MSPB’s FY 2018 Annual Report contains summaries of significant opinions issued 
14

by our reviewing courts, case processing data for initial appeals, and summaries of other merit 

systems activity including articles posted on MSPB’s website. It also contains a review of current 

OPM issues, and summaries of MSPB’s congressional, legislative, international, and outreach 

activities, citations to our work, internal management issues, and the external factors that affect the 

Board’s work. 

Adjudication

The majority of the cases brought to the Board are appeals of adverse actions—that is, removals, 

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

next largest number of cases involves appeals of OPM and some agency determinations in 

retirement matters. Congress has given the Board jurisdiction to hear cases and complaints filed 

under a variety of other laws to include the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.; the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act 

(VEOA), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a et seq.; the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) Pub. Law. No. 101-12, 

103 Stat. 16; the WPEA, Pub. Law 112-199; the DVA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection 

Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-41; the NDAA for FY 2017, Pub. L. No. 114; the NDAA for FY 

2018, Pub. L. No. 115-91, 131; the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, 

Pub. L. No. 115-73; and additional authorities listed in the regulation set out at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3. 

As detailed in that regulation, other types of actions that may be appealed to the Board include: 

performance-based removals or reductions in grade; denials of within-grade salary increases; 

reduction-in-force actions; suitability determinations; OPM employment practices (the development 

and use of examinations, qualification standards, tests, and other measurement instruments); denials 

of restoration or reemployment rights; and certain terminations of probationary employees.

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

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

for in the law and the Board’s regulations and, after providing a full opportunity to develop the 

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

the initial decision becomes final 35 days after issuance. Any party, OPM, or OSC, may petition the 

full Board in Washington, D.C. to review the initial decision. The Board’s decision on a PFR 

constitutes the final administrative decision on the appeal.

The Board’s final decision, whether it is an initial decision of an AJ that has become final or the 

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

in cases involving allegations of discrimination, to a U.S. district court or the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In addition, cases solely involving allegations of reprisal for 

whistleblowing may be appealed to any of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals with competent 

jurisdiction.

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

agreement entered into the record for MSPB enforcement, the party can file a Petition for 

Enforcement with the regional or field office that issued the initial decision. Once the AJ issues an 

initial decision, which may find compliance, non-compliance, or partial compliance, depending on 

the number of issues raised, either party may file a PFR with the full Board. Additionally, even if 

neither party files a PFR of an initial decision finding non-compliance, MSPB’s regulations require 
15

that the case be referred to the full Board to ensure that the non-complying party has reached 

compliance.

In addition to adjudicating cases on the merits, MSPB also provides several Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) services to assist parties in resolving their cases. Use of these services is 

voluntary, provides the parties more control of the process, and can result in effective resolution of 

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

appellant, agency, MSPB, and Government-wide as compared to the more formal regulations and 

procedures involved with adjudication on the merits.

Mediation Appeals Program

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

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

Mediators facilitate a discussion between the parties in a confidential setting to help them identify 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

inception. MAP mediators are successfully settling more than half of the appeals referred to 

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

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

mediators were asking parties to complete evaluations at the end of each mediation, more than 95% 

stated they would use MAP again.

AJs also discuss settlement with the parties to the cases assigned to them for adjudication, and act as 

settlement judges for parties to cases assigned to other AJs who prefer that option, but MAP 

mediations are sought far more often than are settlement judges.

Merit Systems Studies and OPM Oversight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

necessary to oversee Federal merit systems at both the systemic and individual level.
16

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

workforce. 

Publications Issued in FY 2017 and FY 2018

No study reports have been published since the loss of quorum in early 2017, as MSPB practice has 

been to issue reports under the signature of a quorum of the Board Members. However, in addition 

to regular editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter, MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation has 

issued:

The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors (August 2018) uses

selected data from MSPB’s 2016 and 2010 Merit Principles Surveys (MPSs) to build on previous 

MSPB research on employee engagement and motivation. Decades of social science research 

show that knowledge-based workers are more likely to think creatively and be motivated to 

perform well when provided a balance of feedback and autonomy. Feedback can help 

employees to see the importance of their work and help them know what efforts are more likely 

to lead to success. This Research Brief discusses the roles of feedback from supervisors, 

autonomy, and meaningful work and demonstrates their relationship to positive employee 

performance behaviors.

Improving Federal Hiring Through Better Assessment (July 2018) summarizes MSPB research on applicant

assessment, identifies 10 factors for agencies to consider when investing in better assessment, 

reiterates the business case for Congress to appropriate funds to OPM for the development and 

administration of Government-wide applicant assessments, and presents information and agency 

perspectives on OPM’s USA Hire assessment suite.

Update on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace (March 2018) summarizes Federal employee

perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace, based on MSPB’s 2016 MPS and previous 

MSPB surveys. In advance of a full report on the topic, this research brief presents preliminary 

findings on the incidence of sexual harassment and how employees respond to harassment in 

advance of a full report on the topic. This publication has resulted in numerous requests from 

Federal agencies and Congress for additional information on MSPB’s research methods and 

results.

Building Blocks for Effective Performance Management (October 2017) presents selected results from the

2016 MPS on the topic of performance management. The key finding is that organizations that 

believe they have the “building blocks” for performance—adequately trained supervisors, 

sufficient resources, and usable performance standards and measures—are less likely to report a 

lower incidence of poor or substandard performance and more likely to have success in 

identifying and correcting such performance. 

Adverse Actions: A Compilation of Articles (January 2017) discusses selected aspects of the Title 5 

system for taking adverse action (i.e., suspension, demotion, or removal) for reasons of conduct 

or performance. This compilation outlines, in a format geared to policymakers and 

practitioners, key concepts such as due process and nexus and important considerations such as 

the labeling of charges, assuring the independence and discretion of the deciding official, and 

preventing and rectifying procedural errors.
17

The Merit System Principles: Keys to Managing the Federal Workforce (January 2017) provides an orientation

to the MSPs for policymakers and officials who will manage civil service employees, such as 

non-career Presidential appointees. This publication draws on both Office of Policy and 

Evaluation research and MSPB decisions to explain and illustrate the nine MSPs to help Federal 

officials exercise personnel authority responsibly and lead Federal employees fairly and 

effectively.

Addressing Misconduct in the Federal Civil Service: Management Perspectives (December 2016) presents

information about managers’ knowledge of the discipline and appeals system, how they use that 

system, and what forces may create barriers to action. The publication was intended for 

policymakers who may be considering changes to the discipline and appeals system.

Reports Prepared for Board Member Review

Improving Federal Leadership Through Better Probationary Practices examines how the supervisory and

managerial probationary periods are being used by agencies. The probationary period allows 

agencies to observe a new hire’s performance before finalizing the appointment. When used 

properly, the probationary period can help ensure that the Federal Government has qualified 

and competent leaders. MSPB found that agencies rarely use the probationary period to take 

action against unsuccessful leaders. Some of the identified barriers can be addressed by 

changing agency practices, such as extending the length of probationary periods, which can be 

done at the agency head’s discretion. Others, however, do not have easy solutions. Therefore, 

the most effective way to improve the cadre of new supervisors is to reduce the likelihood of 

making a bad hire in the first place, including improving hiring, employee development, and 

supervisory preparation. (Related MSPs: 2, 5, 6, and 7.)

Perceptions of Prohibited Personnel Practices: An Update. The PPPs are a series of proscribed actions,

codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b), which were augmented in 2010 and 2017. This report presents 

data from the successive MPSs, which show that employee perceptions of PPPs have increased 

since 2010. Notably, only 54% of respondents in 2016 indicated that they had observed no 

PPPs, compared to 78% in 2010. The report also presents survey data related to the 13th PPP 

concerning non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), with many employees indicating that their 

agency’s NDAs did not include the required language about whistleblowing rights. (Related 

MSPs: 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9.)

Preventing and Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service. This report discusses causes of poor

performance (as defined in Chapter 43 of Title 5), the effectiveness of various methods to 

improve poor performance, and the ability of agencies to remove poor performers from 

positions in which they are not meeting requirements. Key findings are that poor performance 

often has roots in selection, placement, or employee commitment, and (consequently) that 

common measures to improve performance, such as clarifying expectations and coaching, often 

do not succeed. (Related MSPs: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.)

Several studies from the published research agenda are also in progress, in various stages of research 

or drafting.
18

Information Technology

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

for Federal employees. Generally, about 50% of appeals filed with the agency are from pro se 

appellants—employees representing themselves. All appellants (represented or not) are expected to 

file an appeal and to respond to orders in a timely manner or risk having their cases dismissed. The 

Board’s electronic filing system, e-Appeal Online, allows Federal agencies and appellants instant 

access to party filings and Board issuances through e-Appeal as soon as they are filed or issued.

Parties who elect to file electronically through e-Appeal receive email notification of orders and 

issuances from MSPB instantaneously, rather than having to wait for service by regular mail.

MSPB’s Office of Information Resources Management develops, implements, and maintains the 

agency’s automated IT systems to help the agency manage its caseload efficiently and carry out its 

administrative and research responsibilities.

Human Resources

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

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

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

and monitored within MSPB’s Office of Financial and Administrative Management, which is located 

in Headquarters. The services listed in the agreement are not meant to be all-inclusive and the two 

agencies work together in a mutually cooperative manner to handle HR issues that arise that may not 

be specifically addressed in the interagency agreement.

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

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

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

with FOH to offer all of its employees access to the employee assistance program (EAP). The EAP 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Management

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

Fiscal Service (BFS) for its accounting, financial auditing, purchasing, and travel-related services and 

support. BFS has processed our administrative payments and prepared our accounting reports since 

FY 2002. The Board has received unqualified/unmodified opinions on its audits since the agency 

has been subject to audits of its financial statements. 

MSPB also has an agreement in place with APHIS for personnel services and the USDA National 

Finance Center (NFC) for processing of payroll and payroll-related activities including earnings and 

leave statements, W-2 information, and debt management. Our cross-servicing relationships with 
19

these organizations have provided MSPB with timely responses and more accurate processing of 

information from larger pools of knowledgeable staff than would be possible with smaller in-house 

staff. BFS, APHIS, and NFC have the resources to stay current with the latest technologies, so they 

can provide these services more efficiently and economically.

Equal Employment Opportunity

MSPB’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) plans, implements and evaluates the 

agency’s affirmative employment programs and initiatives, advises senior executives, managers and 

supervisors about these programs and initiatives and provides all employees training on rights and 

remedies available under the anti-discrimination laws and whistleblower protection laws. OEEO 

provides equal employment opportunity counseling, formal complaint processing, and alternative 

dispute resolution services to current and former employees as well as applicants who allege 

discrimination. OEEO also resolves and/or processes complaints filed by individuals who allege 

discrimination based on disability in their access to MSPB programs and activities. OEEO evaluates 

and reports MSPB’s complaint data workforce demographics by occupation and grade to Congress, 

the EEOC, OPM and other external stakeholders. 
20

VICE CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN MEMBER

Field Offices 

Denver and

New York

Financial and

Administrative 

Management

Information

Resources 

Management

The functions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) are performed by ALJs employed by the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) under reimbursable interagency agreements.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Administrative 

Law Judge

Appeals 

Counsel

Clerk of the 

Board

General 

Counsel

Policy and 

Evaluation

Executive 

Director

Regional 

Operations

Performance

Improvement

Officer

Regional Offices 

Atlanta, Chicago,

Dallas,

Philadelphia,

Oakland, and

Washington, DC 

Human Resources Management services are provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Business Services.

Payroll services are provided by USDA, National Finance Center.

Accounting services are provided by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS). 

Organization Chart