§

Annual Performance Report (APR)

for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2022

and

Annual Performance Plan (APP)

for

FY 2023 (Final) & FY 2024 (Proposed)

March 13, 2023
ii MSPB APR-APP for FY 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

This page intentionally left blank.
iii MSPB APR-APP for FY 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Table of Contents

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

Restoration of Board Quorum....................................................................................................................1

Summary of FY 2022 Performance Results..............................................................................................1

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.............................................................................................................................19

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish MSPB’s Objectives ........................................25

Strategic Goal 1............................................................................................................................................25

Strategic Goal 2............................................................................................................................................27

Management Objectives.............................................................................................................................28

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance...............................................29

Internal Management Challenges..............................................................................................................29

External Trends...........................................................................................................................................32

Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation ............................................................36

Program Evaluation.................................................................................................................36

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2022.....................................................................................38

Appendix B: Information Required under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(i)(1) and (2) ................................45

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report...................................46

Appendix D: More Information about MSPB.........................................................................48

List of Common Abbreviations and Acronyms.......................................................................53
iv MSPB APR-APP for FY 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

This page intentionally left blank.
v MSPB APR-APP for FY 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Foreword

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

Annual Performance Plan (APR-APP) for fiscal years (FYs) 2022-2024, which combines the final 

APR for FY 2022 with the APP for FY 2023 (final) and FY 2024 (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). The APR-APP is based on the MSPB 

Strategic Plan for FY 2022-2026, compares annual performance results for FY 2022 to performance 

targets defined in March 2022, and includes prior year results for comparative purposes. It also 

contains final performance goals (PGs), measures, and targets for FY 2023 and proposed goals, 

measures, and targets for FY 2024, 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 

APRs, 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:

DeeAnn Batten, 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 Twitter @USMSPB.
vi MSPB APR-APP for FY 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

This page intentionally left blank.
1 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

APR-APP for FY 2022-2024

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. 

Restoration of Board Quorum

On March 4, 2022, MSPB’s quorum was restored with the swearing-in of Raymond A. Limon and 

Tristan L. Leavitt as Board members. 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 is now Acting Chairman.1 Between March 1, 

2019 and March 3, 2022, MSPB operated in accordance with its continuity of operations plan 

(COOP), under which MSPB’s General Counsel served as the agency’s Acting Chief Executive and 

Administrative Officer.2 Throughout the lack of quorum, MSPB continued to process initial appeals

and issue decisions in the RO/FOs, processed appeals at HQ and prepared draft decisions awaiting 

Board review and voting, and conducted other statutory and administrative functions where possible 

without a quorum. Restoration of a quorum allowed MSPB to resume issuing decisions on petitions 

for review (PFRs) and other decisions from HQ and to resume issuing reports of merit systems 

studies. Most recently, Member Leavitt departed MSPB after fulfilling his term which ended on 

February 28, 2023. However, Acting Chairman Harris and Member Limon represent a quorum of 

Board members, and MSPB remains fully operational. More information about the effects of the 

restoration of the quorum is included later in this document. 

Summary of FY 2022 Performance Results

In FY 2022, MSPB met five of nine strategic and management objectives, including those for 

adjudication of initial appeals in the regional and field offices (RO/FOs), adjudication of 

headquarters (HQ) cases, review of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations and 

significant actions, and the two management support objectives for human capital (HC) and for 

information technology (IT) modernization. MSPB partially met two of nine objectives, including

1 On June 24, 2021, President Biden nominated Cathy A. Harris to be a Member and Chairman of the MSPB and Raymond A. Limon 

to be a Member of the MSPB with the designation of Vice Chairman. On September 13, 2021, President Biden nominated Tristan L.

Leavitt as the third Member of the MSPB. On September 22, 2021, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs held a nomination hearing for the three nominees. On October 6, 2021, the nominees were reported favorably out of 

committee, and the nominations were placed on the Senate calendar. On January 3, 2022, the Senate returned Ms. Harris’s 

nominations to the President, and she was renominated on January 4, 2022. On February 4, 2022, her nominations were reported 

favorably out of committee and placed on the Senate calendar. On March 1, 2022, the Senate confirmed the nominations of 

Mr. Limon and Mr. Leavitt. Ms. Harris’ nomination as a Member was confirmed by the Senate on May 25, 2022. Her 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.

2 MSPB was without a quorum of Board members for five years (from January 8, 2017, through March 3, 2022) and without any 

presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Board members between March 1, 2019, and March 3, 2022.
2 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

those for enforcement case processing and for merit systems studies. MSPB exceeded two of nine 

objectives, including those for outreach and for educational and informational materials. MSPB 

committed to assessing and resolving several PG and measurement issues during FY 2022. Selected 

MSPB offices were involved in assessing PG statements and performance measures relevant to their 

office’s work. A working group was formed to consider issues and potential changes in the HQ 

adjudication PGs and measures. Most of these issues were resolved and are noted in this document.

Performance targets are updated for FY 2023. Most FY 2024 performance targets are to be 

determined (TBD) based on FY 2023 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.3 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 properly, adequately, and 

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 of the 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA).4 The CSRA replaced the CSC with three new agencies: 

MSPB as the successor to the Commission;5 OPM as the president’s agent for Federal workforce 

policy and procedure; and the Federal Labor Relations Authority to oversee Federal labormanagement relations. 

3 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. 

4 Ibid. page 113. 

5 Ibid. page 114. 
3 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 Office 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 2022 performance results and performance targets for FY 2023 

(final) and FY 2024 (proposed). MSPB revised the FY 2023 targets from those contained in the 

FY 2023 APP (published in March 2022) based on restoration of the full Board, results of assessing 

various PGs and measures, and other changes in external and internal 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 also have 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 2023 (final) and 

2024 (proposed) are in line with MSPB’s proposed budgets for those years.6 MSPB’s plans and 

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

6 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 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 meritbased 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.7

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. 

7 In FY 2023 and FY 2024, MSPB will focus on measures related to reducing the inventory of cases at HQ rather than average 

processing time.
5 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 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 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 MET. MSPB exceeded the target for timeliness of initial appeals processing with an 

average of 96 days, more than 10% fewer days than the target. The new measure for quality of initial 

decisions (IDs) is the percentage of reviewed IDs that meet 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).

The FY 2023 target for initial appeals quality is to have 85% of reviewed decisions meet QRT standards. The 

FY 2023 target for ADR is to refer 6% or more of appeals to MAP. The FY 2023 target for average 

processing time for initial appeals remains 120 days or fewer. The FY 2024 targets for all PGs are TBD based 

on FY 2023 results.

Performance Goal 1A-RO-1: Ensure quality of initial decisions.

Measure: Percentage of reviewed IDs that meet QRT standards. 

Current Performance Year

FY 2022

Result

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.

FY 2022

Target

No numeric target set. Assess processes and available data and determine an appropriate 

measure for ID quality.

Future Targets

FY 2023 85% of decisions reviewed meet QRT standards.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New measure in FY 2022 to be implemented in FY 2023.
7 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022

Result 96 days 

FY 2022

Target 120 days or fewer.

Future Targets

FY 2023 120 days or fewer.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 See Interim Indicator below.

FY 2018 102 days

FY 2019 105 days 

FY 2020 102 days 

FY 2021 105 days 

Interim Indicator for Initial Appeals Processing: 

1A-4a: In FY 2017, this indicator was redefined as the percentage of cases closed that were filed prior to 

October 1, 2016. Discontinued in FY 2018.

FY 2017 Target 65% (closure of 2,030 cases filed before October 1, 2016)

FY 2017 Result 98% (1,989/2,030)

Performance Goal 1A-RO-3: Ensure use of ADR processes. 

Measure: Percentage of appeals referred to MAP.

Current Performance Year 

FY 2022

Result

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

statement and measure are defined above. 

FY 2022

Target

No numeric target set. Consider and determine new goal and measure for the ADR 

process.

Future Targets

FY 2023 6% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022 to be implemented in FY 2023.
8 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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

supported by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

This objective was MET. The PG for quality of Board decisions involves actions taken by the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on all MSPB decisions filed with the Court. MSPB decisions filed 

with the Court may include decisions issued by HQ or initial appeals decisions issued in the RO/FOs. 

Because this measure includes HQ decisions, it is considered an HQ case processing PG. Naturally, during 

the lack of quorum when no HQ decisions were being issued, the proportion of HQ decisions filed with the 

Court decreased. Under the current calculation for quality of Board decisions, 87% of cases were left unchanged

by the CAFC, which is within 10% of the target of 92% or greater. A new measure for quality of Board 

decisions, implemented in FY 2023, is defined as the percentage of cases affirmed of the cases decided by 

CAFC on the merits of the Board’s decision. This is a change from the prior measure, designed to focus on a 

more precise affirmance rate. (Note that prior year results are for the previous measure of cases left 

unchanged by the Court.) MSPB did not set a numeric target for cases decided at HQ because we began the

year without a quorum. However, between restoration of a quorum in early March 2022 and the end of

FY 2022, MSPB decided 528 cases at HQ. MSPB will eliminate the timeliness measure for HQ cases for at 

least FY 2023 and FY 2024. Given the unique circumstances of the 5-year loss of 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. Rather, MSPB will adopt 

two 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.

For FY 2023, the target for Board case quality is 82% or higher of Board cases affirmed by the CAFC. The

FY 2023 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 2024 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 2022

Result 87% (using current calculation); new measure for affirmance rate is stated above.

FY 2022

Target

92% or more using the current calculation (unless this measure or its calculation is 

changed in FY 2022).

Future Targets

FY 2023 82% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 94% 

FY 2018 92%

FY 2019 86% 

FY 2020 94% 

FY 2021 83% 
9 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Performance Goal 1A-HQ-2: Ensure processing timeliness for PFRs. Beginning in 

FY 2023, this performance goal is eliminated. HQ case processing will be measured 

by performance goals focused on HQ case inventory processing. 

Measure: Average case processing time for PFRs of initial appeals (including PFRs of 

addenda). PG and measure eliminated beginning in FY 2023.

Current Performance Year

FY 2022

Result

MSPB eliminated this PG and measure for at least FY 2023 and FY 2024. It is unlikely 

that any computation on timeliness would assist in managing the PFR process or convey 

any positive or meaningful results in the early years of inventory reduction. The focus 

should be on more specific inventory reduction PGs.

FY 2022

Target No numeric target set. Consult new Board to determine appropriate measure and target.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Beginning in FY 2023, this performance goal is eliminated.

FY 2024 Not applicable.

Past Results

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum.

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.

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

Measure: Total number of cases decided at HQ.

Current Performance Year

FY 2022

Result New measure was defined as stated above.

FY 2022

Target

No numeric target set. Define PG and measure depending on new Board’s approach to 

the inventory.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Decide 1,000 cases or more.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022.
10 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022

Result New measure was defined as stated above.

FY 2022

Target

No numeric target set. Define PG and measure depending on new Board’s approach to 

the inventory (if needed).

Future Targets

FY 2023 Decide 75% or more of the oldest 1,000 cases.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022.

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

This objective was PARTIALLY MET. MSPB exceeded the average processing time for compliance case 

addenda in the RO/FOs, with an average processing time of 89 days, more than 10% fewer days than the 

target of 120 days. MSPB began the assessment of compliance case processing at HQ and determined that 

this assessment must be continued through FY 2023 to consider the nuances and details of the process and 

the resources needed to perform this function, and to coordinate with new agency leaders. 

In FY 2023, 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 2024 targets for both measures are TBD based on FY 2023 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 2022

Result 89 days

FY 2022

Target 120 days or fewer.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Consider appropriate measures and numeric targets to ensure we encourage resolution of 

compliance cases in ways that support long-term efficiency and effectiveness.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 122 days*

FY 2018 95 days

FY 2019 104 days
11 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

FY 2020 94 days

FY 2021 93 days 

* The results for FY 2017 were affected by the processing of furlough cases. See PG 1A-RO-2 (on the 

timeliness of initial appeals) above.

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

new PG statement may be defined in FY 2023.

Measure: Work on defining a new measure for HQ compliance case processing will 

continue in FY 2023.

Current Performance Year

FY 2022

Result

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.

FY 2022

Target

No numeric target set. Assess compliance case processing at HQ and determine 

appropriate measure for this PG.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Define new measure for this function based on continued assessment of the process and

resources required and coordination with new agency leaders.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 No target set, not rated, no quorum.

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.

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

HC management issues. 

This objective was PARTIALLY MET. MSPB achieved the newsletter target by publishing three Issue of Merit 

(IoM) editions covering eight of nine MSPs and three PPPs. Newsletter topics included workplace aggression, 

reforming Federal hiring, hiring students and recent graduates, transitioning back to the office, using 

retirement to retain talent, the effect of competencies on agency culture, what has changed in the human 

resources (HR) field, stay interviews, using subject matter experts to prevent perceptions of favoritism, 

recruitment apps, post-survey action planning, creating an ethical work environment, identifying why Federal 

employees want to quit, rehiring retired employees, and college recruitment. MSPB published one of the 

targeted two studies reports or documents: MSPB’s Research Agenda for 2022-2026. An additional report on 

sexual harassment was drafted and submitted to the Board for review and approval.8 MSPB achieved the 

survey target by preparing a survey on the Federal HR workforce and posting the 2021 Merit Principles 

Survey (MPS) data on Data.gov and on the MSPB website.

The FY 2023 targets are to publish three IoM editions, publish two study documents, and design or 

implement a focused interagency studies survey. The FY 2024 targets are TBD based on FY 2023 results.

8 In December 2022, MSPB published Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem.
12 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022

Result Published 3 IoM editions covering 8 of 9 MSPs and 3 PPPs.

FY 2022

Target Publish 3 IoM editions.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Publish 3 IoM editions.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017

Published 3 IoM editions and 2 online articles, Addressing Misconduct in the Federal Civil 

Service: Management Perspectives and MSPs: Keys to Managing the Federal Workforce (all MSPs & 

PPPs).

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 of 9 MSPs. 

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

Beginning in FY 2020, additional articles and research briefs were included in 1C-2.

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 2022

Result Published the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Research Agenda 2022-2026.

FY 2022

Target Publish 2 or more study documents. 

Future Targets

FY 2023 Publish 2 or more study documents.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. 

FY 2018 No target set, not rated, no quorum.
13 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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.

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 2022

Result

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

Prepared a survey of the Federal HR Workforce.

FY 2022

Target Design or implement a focused interagency studies survey.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Design or implement a focused interagency studies survey.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017

Analyzed MPS data and prepared study reports on selected topics, conducted after-action 

review of the survey process, prepared data for the National Archives and Records 

Administration, and proactively posted MPS data on our website. Began working with 

OPM to renew the memorandum of understanding for use of Enterprise Human 

Resource Integration (EHRI) data.

FY 2018

Continued to analyze 2016 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 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. 
14 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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

as appropriate. 

This objective was MET. MSPB determined that there are too few cases requesting review of OPM 

regulations to use a numeric measure for this PG. Beginning in FY 2023, the measure is defined as including

relevant information about requests to review OPM regulations in the MSPB AR. This will support 

recognition of this important statutory function in the APR-APP and ensure that information about review of 

OPM regulations and significant actions are presented in the same document, simplifying stakeholder access 

to this information. In FY 2022, MSPB published the review of OPM actions in FY 2021 in the MSPB 2021 

AR and decided to retain the measure for review of OPM significant actions. 

The FY 2023 target for review of OPM regulations is to include relevant information about FY 2022 cases in 

the FY 2022 AR. The target for review of OPM significant actions is to maintain the scope and publish the 

review of OPM significant action in the FY 2022 AR. The FY 2024 target for both PGs is TBD based on 

FY 2023 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 2022

Result New measure was defined as stated above. 

FY 2022

Target

No target set; reassess how to measure this statutory function with input from new Board 

members.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Publish relevant information about FY 2022 cases involving review of OPM regulation in 

the FY 2022 AR.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New measure in FY 2023.

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 2022

Result

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.

FY 2022

Target

Publish review of OPM significant actions in the FY 2021 AR; reassess how to measure 

this statutory function with input from new Board members.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Maintain scope; publish review of OPM significant action in the FY 2022 AR.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.
15 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Past Results

FY 2017

Published MSPB’s FY 2016 AR, including review of OPM significant actions. Significant 

actions in FY 2016 included evolution of OPM structure and finances, guidance on 

placement of political appointees in the career service during the 2016 presidential 

transition, strengthening the Senior Executive Service (SES), and closing mission-critical 

skills gaps. 

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. 

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. 

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 112 outreach events, or over 10% more than the targeted 

value of 90 events or more. Outreach events were conducted on topics such as merit systems and merit-based 

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, 

congressional organizations, Federal court organizations, Federal Executive Boards, good-government and 

affinity groups, a variety of legal groups (Bar and other attorney associations, national institutes, and law 

schools), and major legal and research conferences. In trying to improve the balance of outreach events, MSPB 

identified outreach process issues that must be resolved to effectively balance events and target specific groups.

MSPB will retain the measure of total number of outreach events.

The FY 2023 target is to conduct 90 events, update the outreach calendar and guidance, and consider issues 

and methods to target outreach and engagement to specific groups. The FY 2024 target is TBD based on 

FY 2023 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 2022

Result

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.

FY 2022

Target

Conduct 90 or more outreach events and improve the audience balance in events; assess 

past outreach events and the outreach process and determine how to target events to key 

audiences and measure outreach success.
16 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Future Targets

FY 2023

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.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017

Conducted 138 outreach events and implemented the new outreach calendar, which 

improves the collection of outreach data, including type of audience feedback collected 

at events. 

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. 

FY 2020 Conducted 76 outreach events. 

FY 2021 Conducted 138 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 EXCEEDED. MSPB exceeded the target for providing educational and information 

documents by publishing at least 25 documents, more than triple the targeted number of eight or more new 

or updated documents. Documents included eight Federal Register (FR) notices; three press releases; more 

than nine documents related to the arrival of Board members and relevant changes or updates to adjudication 

information; five studies documents; and more than seven agency annual reports, plans, or results from

employee survey data. MSPB clarified the informational and educational documents appropriate for this PG 

in the statement of the measure. MSPB work was cited in 113 different sources, exceeding the scope of 

sources reported in the previous year by more than 10%. Notable citations include MSPB studies work cited 

in Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on direct hiring in future emergencies and on sexual 

harassment in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); four academic articles in public policy journals citing 

use of 2016 MPS data or published merit systems study reports; and the Partnership for Public Service’s

Trustworthy: Increasing Civil Servants’ Trust at Work, citing four separate study reports. In FY 2022, MSPB began 

using Google Scholar alerts to improve notification of references to MSPB’s work in research and academic 

sources and decided to retain the measure for tracking the scope of external references to our work.

The FY 2023 target for publishing informational or educational documents is to publish six or more 

documents, including the AR and studies documents. The FY 2023 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 2024 targets for both goals are TBD based 

on FY 2023 results.
17 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022

Result

Published 8 press releases (end of maximum telework, release of the 2021 Annual Report, 

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

research agenda); 3 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 frequently asked questions (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 Annual Financial Report (AFR), the FY 2022 Congressional Budget 

Justification (CBJ), Freedom of Information Act (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.

FY 2022

Target

Post or distribute electronically 8 new or updated informational or educational products; 

review and assess the scope and type materials and guidance and determine how to 

measure and establish appropriate targets for this PG.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Post or distribute electronically 6 new or updated informational or educational products.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results. 

Past Results

FY 2017

Published interactive versions of the Adverse Action report and MSPs: Use in Guiding Fair 

and Effective Management of the Workforce; two external reviews of MSPB’s IT systems; an 

annotated illustration of current avenues of review or appeal for a Federal adverse action; 

designation of the new Vice Chairman Mark A. Robbins; guidance on lack of quorum; and 

the 2016 MPS data. Updated/reorganized the e-FOIA Reading Room web page and 

created a new Privacy Act Program webpage. 

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, VA appeals under 38 U.S.C. 

§ 714, PFR withdrawal policy, lack of quorum FAQs, Information Quality Guidelines, and 

2017 FOIA logs. 

FY 2019

Posted 3 IoM editions and 4 research briefs; 3 FR notices and 5 press releases; the 

FY 2018 AR; other agency reports, plans, and budget documents; the 2018 FEVS results; 

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

Board member service; and changes to the AJ Handbook. 
18 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 accord 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 CBJ for FY 2021, the FY 2019 AR, the FY 2019 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 

(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. 

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 2022

Result

MSPB’s work was cited over 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.

FY 2022

Target

Report scope of references; reassess how to measure this function with input from new 

Board members.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Maintain the scope of references; consider updates to the external references database and 

ways to improve access to tools for tracking external references.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017

MSPB’s work was cited over 600 times in 150 different sources. Several MSPB study 

reports were cited in the OMB Memorandum M-17-22 on Reforming the Federal 

Government and in testimony at a Senate hearing on empowering Federal managers. 

MSPB’s report on veterans hiring was cited in a report by the Congressional Research 

Service (CRS), and reports on engagement and SES training were cited in a new Federal 

management handbook published by the American Society for Personnel Administration. 

Additionally, the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provision to repeal 

the 180-day waiver for hiring people with previous military experience used MSPB’s 

veterans’ hiring report.

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 

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

Psychological Association; and a book on health care management.
19 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

FY 2019

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

letter from the House VA Committee to the Secretary of the VA; a CRS 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. 

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%, or more than 10% 

above the target of 70% or higher. The results for competencies, diversity, and engagement were 73%, 68%, 

and 74% respectively, all within 10% of the target. 

The FY 2023 targets for all PGs are for average percent positive to be 70% or higher. The FY 2024 targets 

for all PGs are TBD based on FY 2023 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 2022

Result Competency average = 73%.

FY 2022

Target Competency average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Competency average = 70% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 Competency average = 71%.

FY 2018 Competency average = 71%.

FY 2019 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).
20 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022

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

FY 2022

Target Diversity average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Diversity average = 70% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 Diversity average = 66%.

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).

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 2022

Result Inclusion average = 81%.

FY 2022

Target Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 Inclusion average = 76%.

FY 2018 Inclusion average = 81%.

FY 2019 Inclusion average = 84%.

FY 2020 Inclusion average = 83%. 

FY 2021 Inclusion average = 86%.
21 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Performance Goal M1-4: Ensure positive employee engagement.

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

Current Performance Year

FY 2022

Result Engagement Index = 74%.

FY 2022

Target Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 Engagement Index = 70%.

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).

Management Objective M2: Modernize IT to support agency mission and 

administrative functions. 

This objective was MET. MSPB achieved its results for IT reliability and internal customer service with 

averages of 74% and 68%, respectively, both within 10% of the target of 70% or higher. MSPB exceeded 

its cybersecurity target, with 94% of assets scanned, more than 10% above the target of 75%. MSPB met 

the target for improving the efficiency of adjudication processing. Results for percentage of initial appeals 

and percentage of pleadings filed electronically were 85% and 95%, respectively, slightly higher than the 

2021 results and the highest results since we began tracking in 2012. MSPB also completed four separate 

test sprints, each including user acceptance testing, and two production data test migrations. MSPB 

completed training and communication plans; acquired external development, technical writing, and 

communications resources; and designated internal training and communication resources to support “golive” in late FY 2023. MSPB met the cloud-based services target by defining a new measure for the PG as 

the percentage of new IT investments that replace legacy on-premises technologies with Governmentapproved cloud service providers.

The FY 2023 targets for the IT reliability and internal IRM customer service measures are an average percent 

positive of 70% or higher. The FY 2023 for cybersecurity is to scan 90% or more of assets. The FY 2023 

target for modernizing the adjudication system is to implement the new system. The FY 2023 target for 

cloud-based services is that 75% of new IT investments that replace legacy systems are cloud-based. The 

FY 2024 targets for all PGs are TBD based on FY 2023 results.
22 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022

Result IT reliability average = 74%.

FY 2022

Target IT reliability average = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2023 IT reliability average = 70% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 IT reliability average = 55%.

FY 2018 IT reliability average = 61%.

FY 2019 IT reliability average = 65%.

FY 2020 IT reliability average = 77%.

FY 2021 IT reliability average = 82%.

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

Measure: Average percentage agreement on relevant IS questions.

Current Performance Year

FY 2022

Result IT internal support = 68%.

FY 2022

Target Average agreement = 70% or higher.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Average agreement = 70% or higher.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017 Average agreement = 52%.

FY 2018 Average agreement = 72%.

FY 2019 Average agreement = 72%.

FY 2020 Average agreement = 80%.

FY 2021 Average agreement = 78%.
23 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022

Result 94% assets scanned; 100% receiving some scanning. 

FY 2022

Target 75% of assets scanned.

Future Targets

FY 2023 90% of assets scanned.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2020 New goal in FY 2021.

FY 2021 Measure and FY 2022 target developed. 

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 2022

Result

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. 

FY 2022

Target Substantially complete the new system.

Future Targets

FY 2023 Implement the new system.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2017

Interim indicators: 61% of initial appeals and 82% of pleadings filed electronically. 

Arranged 2 vendor demonstrations of appeals workflow solutions. Completed significant 

work on e-Appeal release 9.7, a new enhanced version of the Quick Case application, and 

a new Document Management System Upload Application (for litigation cases); and 

essentially completed a new application to automate the completion of electronic case files 

(ECFs) (for courts, Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC), etc.). Partnered with OMB’s Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer 

(CIO) for weekly calls or meetings regarding this goal. 

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.
24 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 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 

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. 

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 2022

Result

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

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

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

included above. 

FY 2022

Target No numeric target. Review these services and determine how to best measure this goal.

Future Targets

FY 2023 75% of new IT investments that replace legacy systems are cloud-based.

FY 2024 TBD based on FY 2023 results.

Past Results

FY 2021 New PG and measure effective in FY 2023.
25 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 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 case 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 equivalents 

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

that MSPB has sufficient adjudication staff to reduce the inventory of cases at HQ, maintain 

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

remands on PFR. 

4. Define and 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. 

Consider measures of adjudication quality that do not require review by a higher appellate 

authority (i.e., the Board on PFR or the courts). Ensure an appropriate focus and 

measurement on adjudication quality and accuracy and adjudication 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. 
26 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 separately for HQ and 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, especially at HQ. Consider external approaches to improve 

complete 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 participant 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 (63% 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. 
27 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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), EEOC, 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 merit 

and to support Administration priorities. 

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

improve 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.
28 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 inventory of HQ cases 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 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, COOP) 

to enable flexible work options that support mission performance, workforce and workplace 

health and safety during emergencies, and hiring and retaining 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, and 

applications) with sufficient resources and expertise (e.g., cybersecurity, network 

administration) to support the agency’s mission and support functions and 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. 
29 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance 

Internal Management Challenges 

The most significant internal issue that affected MSPB was the restoration of a quorum and the 

installation of a full slate of Board members. In addition, MSPB appointed new Directors in OPE 

and ORO, a new General Counsel, and, in early FY 2023, a new, permanent Executive Director. 

While bolstered by the arrival of these important senior leaders, MSPB nonetheless faces significant 

internal challenges that could affect the agency’s ability to carry out its mission, including challenges 

related to HC and the agency’s IT modernization. (The COVID-19 pandemic is an external factor, 

and the internal challenges it creates are discussed in the external factors section.)

Restoration of the Full Board. As discussed in the introduction, MSPB’s quorum was restored on 

March 4, 2022, and the full Board was in place on June 1, 2022. Prior to March 4, 2022, MSPB had 

been without a quorum for five years and without any presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed 

Board members for three years. The lack of quorum, which prevented the issuance of HQ decisions,

led to a large inventory of cases pending at HQ—totaling nearly 3,800 cases by the time a quorum 

was restored. The lack of quorum also prevented MSPB from releasing reports of merit systems 

studies, promulgating substantive regulations to accompany congressional or other changes to our 

jurisdiction and processes, and impeded our review of OPM significant actions. 

Having a quorum permits issuance of decisions at HQ, publication of merit systems studies reports, 

and updates to regulations, among other priorities. MSPB is committed to effectively and efficiently 

performing these functions and responsibilities and exercising the full authority of the Board under 

our statute and other relevant laws. We made significant progress in resuming these agency 

functions and expect operational efficiency and effectiveness will improve over time. It should also 

be noted that MSPB expects there to be a short lag in production (primarily in adjudication, with 

possible impacts on broader systems and functions) when the new, modernized electronic appeals 

system is implemented. More details about resuming the adjudication process at HQ and publication 

of merit systems studies documents is included below. 

Resuming the functions that support voting and issuance of HQ decisions involves staff in many 

offices, including OAC, OCB, OGC, Board members’ offices, and IRM. Much of the work began 

before new Board members arrived, when career staff prepared thousands of recommended

decisions that awaited members’ review and voting. Once a quorum was restored, the initial priority 

was onboarding Board members and providing initial briefings on MSPB programs (including 

adjudication). In addition to this onboarding process, the Board members had to staff their offices, 

which was done by either detailing attorney and paralegal employees from OAC, OGC, and ORO or 

hiring new employees. Career MSPB employees briefed and trained new members (and their staffs,

as necessary) on the overall HQ case and decision review process and the electronic case processing 

applications. These applications included a new electronic voting application that was developed 

during the lack of quorum period to enable Board members to work more efficiently in a hybrid 

environment. The members also had to reach agreement on case processing priorities. Once these 

initial activities were accomplished, the Board members could focus their efforts on reviewing 

recommended decisions and voting on cases prepared during the lack of quorum period. 

Reducing the HQ case inventory to a manageable level will require that the voting and issuance 

process operate more efficiently than for any previous Board. The Board member review process 

requires each member to see and approve the proposed edits of the other members so that final 

votes are taken on the same version of the decision. Once voting is complete, decisions are 
30 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

transferred to OCB, where they undergo final quality review and are issued to the parties and posted 

to MSPB’s website. As the Board members review and edit cases, OAC must continue to learn the 

priorities and styles of each Board member to minimize decision rewrites and continue the pace of 

preparing recommended decisions for Board review. In addition, new Board decisions are changing

precedent, with over 30 new precedential decisions issued in FY 2022. This requires OAC staff to 

reword and alter a significant number of recommended decisions in the inventory to incorporate 

new precedent while simultaneously preparing recommended decisions in newly filed cases. 

Additionally, the new precedential decisions must be considered in the adjudication of initial appeals 

conducted by AJs in the RO/FOs. Also, for the first time in five years, the RO/FOs are receiving 

remands and reversals of their IDs from the Board in PFR cases. AJs, many of whom were not 

MSPB employees when decisions were last issued at HQ in early 2017, must simultaneously 

adjudicate and issue decisions in new initial appeals, incorporate new Board precedent, and process

remands effectively and efficiently. Notably, in FY 2022, MSPB decided 528 HQ cases, including 

over 30 precedential decisions that will affect other pending HQ cases and the processing of initial 

appeals in the RO/FOs.

Publication of merit systems studies reports and other documents involves review, input, and 

approval by Board members. Studies documents serve a different purpose—and are intended for a 

wider range of MSPB stakeholders—than the HQ decisions reviewed and voted on by Board 

members. Studies documents are intended to share MSPB’s rationale, results, findings, and 

recommendations on myriad topics related to improving management under MSPs, avoiding PPPs, 

and managing a merit-based Federal workforce. MSPB has continued to conduct merit systems 

studies research and prepare documents for review. However, just as Board members faced a learning 

curve with respect to the adjudication process, they required time to gain familiarity and 

understanding of the studies program and its products. Further, MSPB researchers must learn the 

priorities and interests of the Board members to ensure the design and execution of a review and 

approval process for studies documents that is efficient and effective. During FY 2022, MSPB

appointed a new OPE Director, oriented new Board members to the studies process and products, 

and received approval to publish an IoM edition and the new MSPB Research Agenda for 2022-2026. 

Human Capital Challenges. MSPB now has a full complement of Board members, three new 

office directors, and a permanent Executive Director. However, MSPB continues to face challenges 

with leadership and staff vacancies and retirement eligibility in several agency programs. As of 

October 2022, approximately 27 percent of all MSPB employees, including almost 30 percent of AJs 

and adjudication managers involved with processing initial appeals, are eligible to retire between now 

and the end of 2024. The current level of retirement eligibility for AJs and their managers reflects 

the departures of many senior AJs and managers and the hiring of new, non-retirement eligible staff 

since the 2019-2021 APR-APP, in which retirement eligibility through 2022 was reported at 47%. 

Additionally, 63% of merit systems studies research analysts/psychologists are eligible to retire 

between now and the end of 2024. It takes 2-3 years for new attorneys and researchers to reach 

journey-level expertise. Also, in relation to other agency functions, ensuring continued expertise is a 

challenge when employees in critical, one-deep positions, especially those performing 

Governmentwide functions (e.g., IT and administrative functions required by all agencies), depart 

the agency through retirement or transfer.

MSPB has been facing considerable change, including a return to in-office work and a bevy of 

future-of-work considerations, the arrival of new Board members and new office directors, the 

resumption of MSPB functions precluded under the lack of quorum, the ongoing development of a 

modernized electronic appeals system, and the continued effects of the pandemic. A changing 
31 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

environment, even one with at least some anticipated net-positive effects, often induces increased 

employee stress and less positive perceptions of workplace issues and functions in the short term. 

As reported here, results from the 2022 FEVS and 2022 IS showed that MSPB’s FY 2022 

performance targets for perceptions (percent positive) of employee competencies, diversity, and 

engagement were achieved, and the perceptions of inclusion were exceeded. These survey results 

were even greater than what OPM defines as a strength on the FEVS. However, employee 

perceptions of these issues in FY 2022 decreased in comparison to FY 2021. 

In addition to surveys, MSPB periodically assesses employee exit interview information to detect 

trends. Also, per the guidelines for barrier analysis set forth by EEOC, MSPB’s recent annual data 

reports on diversity representation indicate that MSPB is among the more diverse agencies in the 

Executive branch. However, these statistics are limited to a few of the civil rights categories under 

EEOC’s authority (Hispanic ethnicity, race, sex, and disability) which are less expansive than the 

numerous diversity characteristics and measures described by OPM. MSPB is committed to 

assessing results from employee surveys and considering additional information where needed (e.g., 

exit interviews and barrier analyses) to define actions that can be taken (e.g., changes in policies and 

procedures and improved communication) to 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.

MSPB began a SHCP process several years ago to focus on its most critical long-term human capital 

needs. The plan focused on ensuring a reasonable hiring rate of newer employees to form a pool for 

succession management in adjudication, planning for continual performance of the functions of 

one-deep, mission-critical positions when vacancies occur, and ensuring our IT expertise. Although 

MSPB has recruited well-qualified individuals for its adjudicatory and other professional positions, it 

nevertheless often takes two to three years for these new staff to reach full performance level. 

Assessing our SHCP process and identifying ways to strengthen it are included in our performance 

measurement and program evaluation section. 

The success of any SHCP depends on continued, stable funding for FY 2024 and beyond. This 

funding is necessary to retain expertise, improve competencies, improve and sustain employee 

engagement, improve our processes and IT systems, and simultaneously perform our statutory and 

support functions. Sustained resources are necessary to have sufficient staff to reduce the HQ 

inventory while simultaneously processing new cases at HQ; process initial appeals including

remands from the Board; ensure sufficient research staff to conduct merit systems research and 

publish studies reports; and ensure adequate agency-wide training and employee development. 

IT Modernization. MSPB is committed to transitioning to 100% e-adjudication to process cases 

more efficiently and improve service to our customers. In addition, e-adjudication will support 

MSPB’s efforts to comply with Governmentwide initiatives to improve efficiency, effectiveness, 

accountability, and customer service; paperwork reduction requirements; and records management 

directives, including OMB Memorandum M-19-21,9requiring that agencies convert records to 

electronic format. MSPB also is focused on ensuring that it has the IT infrastructure and expertise to 

execute its mission and modernize its systems, including implementing e-adjudication and 

supporting its FedRAMP-certified, web-based survey capability. 

9 OMB Memorandum M-19-21, Transition to Electronic Records, June 28, 2019, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/M-19-21.pdf. 
32 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Beginning in FY 2017, MSPB pivoted away from continually customizing its existing legacy business 

applications that are nearing end-of-life. In FY 2018, MSPB developed comprehensive requirements 

to identify the “next generation” of MSPB’s core business application to fully enable e-adjudication 

of MSPB appeals (while retaining the option for paper processing when necessary). This includes 

replacing systems for case management, document management and document assembly, and eAppeal Online; and integrating the new application with our public-facing website, the extranet, and 

our intranet. In FY 2019, MSPB selected a contractor to design and implement the new core 

business application and began configuring the e-filing and initial appeal processing components. 

Progress on this project was delayed in FY 2020 due to the pandemic. In FY 2021, mock-ups of user 

interfaces representing each functional step of the adjudication business process were delivered, and 

user pilot testing for initial functionality was successfully conducted. In FY 2021, MSPB also 

transitioned to new laptops for all employees and implemented a new cloud-based website. In 

FY 2022, additional pilot functionality was delivered for the new core business application and 

successfully user tested; legacy data was prepared for transfer to the new system; and external and 

internal resources were identified and plans were created to handle the training, communication, and 

documentation required to go live in late FY 2023. As reported earlier in this document, the 

FY 2022 PGs for IT reliability and internal customer services were achieved; however, the results 

were less robust than in FY 2021. It is likely that operational reliability and internal customer service 

are impacted because many of our operational legacy systems are at end-of-life. MSPB anticipates 

that these results will improve once the new systems are implemented and employees become adept 

at using them. This multi-year modernization effort requires a significant investment of resources 

but will yield important improvements in infrastructure, systems, productivity, efficiency, and 

customer service.

External Trends 

Among the external trends that affect MSPB’s ability to carry out its mission are the COVID-19 

pandemic; changes in law, jurisdiction, and appeals processes; and Government reform, budget 

challenges, and workforce reshaping. Any of these external trends—or other, not-yet-evident 

external trends—could require additional resources to ensure a prompt and thorough response by 

the agency. However, even if such external trends do not change MSPB’s workload or adjudication 

complexity, the agency still will require stable and sufficient resources in future years to perform its 

statutory functions effectively and efficiently, especially given the significant inventory of HQ cases. 

Changes in Law, Jurisdiction, and Appeals Processes. There was no legislation enacted in 

FY 2022 that had significant impact on merit-based management or on MSPB functions or 

operations. However, on December 23, 2022, the James. M. Inhofe NDAA for FY 2023 (Pub. L. 

117-263) was enacted into law, providing an avenue for Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

employees to make whistleblower reprisal claims to MSPB, which previously were exclusively 

subject to an internal FBI appeals process. Section 5304 of the NDAA provides an FBI employee 

who alleges reprisal for protected whistleblower activities with the right to appeal a final 

determination or corrective action order to MSPB under 5 U.S.C. § 1221. It also allows for an appeal 

to MSPB under § 1221, if no final determination or corrective action order has been made or issued 

within one-hundred eighty (180) days of the FBI being notified of the allegation of reprisal. This 

change, by expanding MSPB's whistleblowing jurisdiction to include employees not previously 

eligible to file appeals under 5 U.S.C. § 1221, will likely increase the number of such complex cases 

adjudicated by the Board. 

Further on December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) which contained two provisions potentially impacting MSPB as 
33 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

an employer – the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal 

Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act . The PWFA adopts the same meaning of 

“reasonable accommodation” and “undue burden” as used in the Americans with Disabilities and 

Rehabilitation Acts (the latter of which applies to Federal employees) and describes employer 

obligations in responding to requests based on a physical or mental condition related to pregnancy, 

childbirth, and associated medical conditions. It also provides that an employer cannot require an 

employee to take paid or unpaid leave as an accommodation if another reasonable accommodation 

is available. As under the Rehabilitation Act, under the PWFA, employers are not required to 

provide employees with the desired accommodation where an alternative reasonable 

accommodation is available. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act expands existing obligations 

under the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide nursing employees with reasonable break times to 

express breast milk for a year after the child’s birth and describes specific requirements for lactation 

rooms. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act covers all employees, not just exempt employees. This 

new legislation will affect Federal management practices; disputes arising from these provisions 

could become material elements in appeals and mixed EEO complaints.

In addition, recent court decisions and changes in law and regulation summarized in previous 

reports continue to affect Federal management or the appeals process. For example, the CAFC 

decision in Santos v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration requires agencies to prove an 

employee’s performance was unacceptable before imposition of a performance improvement plan. 

The decisions in Connor v. VA and Rodriguez v. VA require the VA to apply the Douglas factors in 

determining penalties and use preponderant evidence as the standard in actions taken under 

38 U.S.C. § 714. In general, these changes may increase appeals to MSPB or add complexity to the 

adjudication of these appeals. They also have required a significant number of remands from the 

Board to AJs and to the VA. 

Settlement of cases leading to a settlement agreement between the parties is an essential and efficient 

process for resolving cases filed with MSPB. EO 13839 (May 25, 2018) significantly affected this 

process because it prohibited agencies from entering into settlement agreements that “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[.]” President Biden revoked EO 13839 on 

January 22, 2021 (via EO 14003) and directed OPM to revisit regulations arising from EO 13839. 

On January 4, 2022, OPM published proposed rules to implement changes to the use of such 

agreements (87 F.R. 200). On November 10, 2022, OPM published the final rules, to take effect 

December 12, 2022 (87 F.R. 67765). Before these rules were promulgated, MSPB was constrained in 

its ability to accept these types of settlement agreements, requiring more cases to be fully adjudicated

on the merits instead of settled. MSPB will continue to track legislative and regulatory changes and 

court precedent that may affect our adjudicatory function or emphasize a need to study the changes 

to determine their effect on merit-based Federal workforce management.

Administration Initiatives. MSPB will continue to support, as appropriate, memoranda and EOs 

delineating the administration’s priorities regarding external equity; the Federal workforce (addressing 

internal diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; gender policy; customer service; and tribal 

consultation); climate change; the COVID-19 pandemic; and building trust through the use of 

science and evidence. The EOs and memoranda related to the Federal workforce could complicate 

the adjudication of affirmative defenses based on discrimination when appellants believe their agency 

has not complied with the letter or intent of these directives, or if they believe that the directives 

themselves are unlawful. MSPB will assess and comply with actions and submissions that are required 

or that most impact our work. In addition, strong merit-based studies and OPM review functions can 
34 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

help ensure that these initiatives do not affect Federal merit-based management in adverse ways. 

MSPB has implemented changes to agency planning documents and embedded improvements into 

agency operations, functions, and processes in response to new priorities, as appropriate.

Federal Budgets, Government Reform, and Workforce Reshaping. There is little evidence of 

significant budget reductions in Federal agencies in the near term. In fact, the programs and budgets 

of some Federal agencies are increasing or changing to address new priorities. When such changes 

lead to workforce reshaping, there are potential merit-based effects on Federal employees. Many 

agency actions such as furloughs, RIFs, and some cases involving Voluntary Early Retirement 

Authority or Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments are appealable to MSPB. Workforce 

reshaping also may affect workforce management, employee engagement, and employee 

effectiveness. Maintaining MSPB’s strong merit systems studies and OPM review functions helps 

ensure adherence to MSPs and avoidance of PPPs. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Reentry. Agencies quickly developed new operational policies 

during the pandemic. The effect on employees of telework eligibility determinations, reentry and 

post-reentry policies, safety and security protocols, accountability for health and safety behaviors, 

vaccine mandates, and sharing health-related information, as examples, could affect merit-based 

management and increase PPPs. The Administration’s Federal employee vaccine mandate is on 

hold and pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. New vaccines continue to be introduced,

including the new bivalent vaccine. If the vaccine mandate is reinstated, refusal to comply with it 

could result in removal, which would increase appeals filed with MSPB. Another possibility is an 

increase in whistleblowing (e.g., whistleblowing disclosures may include allegations regarding 

Government actions affecting the health and safety of the public) and claims of retaliation for 

whistleblowing related to the pandemic. MSPB already has received appeals on actions taken 

against employees that were related to the pandemic. In the longer term, MSPB must be prepared 

to ensure its studies function is able to assess potential impacts of the pandemic on merit-based 

management and the occurrence of PPPs, among other potential effects.

MSPB is fortunate to have a strong telework program and a significant portion of work that can be 

performed remotely or in a hybrid environment. However, some functions either cannot be 

performed remotely or cannot be performed as efficiently remotely as they could be in the office. 

Notably, a large portion of appellants and agencies use our e-filing system, especially for initial 

appeals, and in late FY 2021, MSPB mandated that all new appeals be processed electronically within 

MSPB. However, nearly half of the cases in the HQ inventory are in paper form. Further, while MSPB 

benefits from the availability of Zoom for Government for both internal and external meetings—and 

conducted most hearings virtually during the height of the pandemic—in-person hearings are an 

important part of the adjudication process, and MSPB began resuming them early in FY 2023. For all 

its benefits, working in a virtual environment also has challenges, especially for functions such as onboarding and initial training for new employees, through which frequent discussions between new and 

more experienced employees enhance and expedite knowledge transfer. Additionally, a virtual 

environment can make impromptu substantive exchanges about work-related issues more challenging. 

While MSPB expects adjudication processes to become easier and more efficient for all parties when 

our new e-adjudication system is implemented and plans to continue to leverage telework, the agency 

anticipates in-person hearings and adjudication in the RO/FOs to continue and a continued need for 

other agency in-office work, including for HQ adjudication.

MSPB’s leaders have continued to track the health and safety risks and Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) and Administration guidelines (including the Safer Federal Workforce Task

Force) and incorporate that information in the policies and processes that protect the workforce and 
35 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

support the continued work of the agency. Beginning on October 4, 2021, MSPB employees reentered 

MSPB offices with 25% maximum occupancy, given high community transmission rates at that time. 

Additional staff returned to the office in support of the new Board members’ arrival in March 2022. 

In April and May 2022, remaining MSPB staff returned as needed to achieve their work. At that time, 

in-office staffing levels for the RO/FOs and HQ adjudication offices (OAC, OCB, and the Board 

members’ offices) largely returned to levels comparable to those prior to the pandemic. Agency 

policies related to COVID-19 and consideration of the future-of-work issues continue to be 

important to the agency and to agency employees. MSPB is committed to working with its employees 

to provide appropriate flexibility in work arrangements and supply the tools needed to perform work 

in a hybrid environment to support the continued performance of the agency’s work. 

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. 
36 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 our case HQ, and compliance case processing) come from its automated case management 

system (known as Law Manager), which tracks location, timeliness, outcomes, and other information 

about cases filed with MSPB. MSPB strives for completeness, quality control, and verification and 

validation of performance data in 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 

management 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 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.10

MSPB is committed to high-quality program evaluation. Ensuring the ability to perform our 

statutory mission and comply with 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. If internal 

10 Public Law (Pub. L.) 115-435, and see https://strategy.data.gov.
37 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

program evaluation resources are not available, contractor support is a viable, but potentially more 

expensive, option for conducting program evaluation tasks. This option is most useful when the 

evaluation topic is technical in nature or beyond the knowledge of existing program staff, or when 

the evaluation is focused on program evaluation, itself, or on the office responsible for program 

evaluation activities. 

Results and Status of Program Evaluation Activity

Data integrity and assessment of processing WPEA cases at MSPB. The GAO’s 2016 report on 

the WPEA recommended updating the user guide for entering data at MSPB and improvements to 

MSPB’s data quality checks to help identify discrepancies in WPEA data. In FY 2022, MSPB 

implemented a data integrity policy and review process for WPEA data, including certification of 

adjudication data included in MSPB’s external reports, and issued updated user guidance. Both of 

GAO’s recommendations are closed.

Program Evaluation Status

MSPB Program Evaluation Status

Program/ 

System to 

Evaluate

Evaluation 

Start Year Status

Case 

processing 

and data 

integrity in 

the RO/FOs

FY 2017

Complete. In FY 2022, MSPB implemented a new data integrity policy and certification 

process for WPEA and other adjudication and performance data and issued updated user 

guidance.

Proposed Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement System Review Schedule

Based on resources currently available, a projected schedule for program evaluation activities 

through FY 2023 is provided below. 

Program/Performance Measurement System Evaluation Start Year (FY)

Implementation of SHCP process 2023

Assess agency future of work 2023
38 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2022

In accordance with the WPEA, MSPB is providing this information about whistleblower appeals in 

FY 2022. This report reflects cases processed from October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022, 

and includes data on receipts and outcomes of initial appeals, and receipts of PFRs11 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.12 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.13 

Figure 1 displays data on the number 

and types of appeals that MSPB 

received in FY 2022 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 

11 The Board lacked a quorum between January 7, 2017, and March 3, 2022, and thus was unable to issue decisions on PFRs during 

that time. However, the Board resumed issuing decisions on PFRs after the quorum was restored in March 2022. Thus, Figure 10 

reflects the outcomes of PFR decisions in FY 2022 issued after the quorum was restored. 

12 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). 

13 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. 

52

13

242

140

15

336

192

28

578

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Refiled Appeals Remanded Appeals Initial Appeals

Figure 1: FY 2022 Appeals Received in Regional/Field 

Offices with Claims Under 

5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or 2302(b)(9)

OAAs IRAs Total
39 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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. Remanded or refiled 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.14 Figure 2 depicts the 

number of appeals, both OAA appeals 

and IRA appeals, that were decided in 

FY 2022 in the RO/FOs and whether 

the appeal contained (a) a claim(s) 

under § 2302(b)(8) only; (b) a claim(s) 

under § 2302(b)(9) only; or (c) 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.

15 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 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.16 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 both parties achieve some positive result. 

14 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. 

15 The WPEA requires MSPB to report outcomes of appeals; however, when possible, MSPB also reports and summarizes the 

outcomes of claims. 

16 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. 

201

47 49

244

9

187

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

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
40 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

In a case in which an appellant raises both §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) claims, the outcomes of those 

claims may differ.17 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 

47 OAA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits in the RO/FOs.18 19 It 

includes both the 31 OAA appeals 

adjudicated on the merits with a 

§ 2302(b)(8) claim only and the 

16 OAA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) and 

(b)(9) claims, as referenced in 

Figure 3.20

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 

17 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.”

18 Percentages have been rounded up to the next whole number. 

19 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. 

20 In FY 2022, there were no OAA appeals adjudicated on the merits in which a section 2302(b)(8) claim was raised and corrective 

action was not ordered because there was no personnel action; thus, Figure 4 does not include a category for “Corrective Action Not 

Ordered – No Personnel Action.”

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 26 26 14 104 31 201

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 6 9 1 25 6 47

Both Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 7 13 3 10 16 49

Corrective 

Action Ordered, 

4, 8%

Corrective Action 

Not Ordered -

Agency Would 

Have Taken Same 

Action, 10, 21%

Corrective Action Not 

Ordered - No Protected 

Disclosure, 13, 28%

Corrective Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Contributing Factor, 

10, 21%

Reprisal Claim 

Withdrawn, 5, 

11%

Miscellaneous 

Results, 5, 11%

Figure 4: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) Claims in OAA 

Appeals Adjudicated on the Merits in Regional/Field 

Offices
41 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 5 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(9) claims within the 22 OAA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in the 

RO/FOs. This figure includes the 

6 OAA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with a § 2302(b)(9) claim only 

and the 16 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.”21 Additionally, the “Corrective Action Not Ordered” 

category in Figure 5 includes OAA appeals in which the § 2302(b)(9) claim was not reached. 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.”22 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.23 Figure 6 also includes IRA appeals that 

21 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. 

22 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). 

23 In Figure 6, within the category of “Dismissed, Other Grounds,” the 5 IRA appeals in which a violation of only § 2302(b)(9) was 

alleged include IRA appeals that were dismissed for failure to exhaust. 

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

4 17 1 0 22

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 63 43 10 12 84 32 244

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 1 1 0 0 5 2 9

Both Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 46 41 10 10 48 32 187
42 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

were dismissed without prejudice.24 In addition, as in OAA appeals, cases can be 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 both parties achieve some positive result. 

Figure 7 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(8) claims within the 64 IRA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in 

the RO/FOs.25 It includes the 

outcomes of the 32 IRA appeals 

adjudicated on the merits with a 

§ 2302(b)(8) claim only and the 

32 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 34 IRA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in 

RO/FOs. This includes the outcomes 

of the 2 IRA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with a § 2302(b)(9) claim only 

and the 32 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.” The “Corrective Action Not Ordered” category 

includes IRA appeals in which the § 2302(b)(9) claim was not reached. 

24 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. 

25 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

6 26 1 1 34

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered, 10, 

16%

Corrective Action 

Not Ordered -

Agency Would 

Have Taken Same 

Action, 19, 30%

Corrective Action Not 

Ordered - No Protected 

Disclosure, 22, 34%

Corrective Action 

Not Ordered - No 

Personnel 

Action, 1, 2%

Corrective Action 

Not Ordered - No 

Contributing 

Factor, 8, 12%

Miscellaneous 

Results, 4, 6%

Figure 7: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) Claims in IRA 

Appeals Adjudicated on the Merits in Regional/Field 

Offices
43 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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. No Board 

decisions were issued on PFRs during 

the Board’s lack of quorum between 

January 7, 2017, and March 3, 2022. 

However, in FY 2022, the Board’s 

quorum was restored,26 and the Board 

began issuing decisions on PFRs in 

March 2022. 

In addition, on June 22, 2022, Member Raymond Limon, Member Tristan Leavitt, and Vice 

Chairman and Acting Chairman Cathy Harris signed an updated policy stating 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 2022, the Office of the Clerk of the Board granted 2 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 an appropriate 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 2022, the 

Board issued decisions on 

127 PFRs of appeals that 

involved §§2302(b)(8) 

and/or (b)(9) claims. 

Twenty-seven 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 

26 Member Raymond Limon and Member Tristan Leavitt were confirmed by the Senate on March 1, 2022, and sworn into their duties 

as members of the Board on March 4, 2022. Acting Chairman Cathy Harris was confirmed by the Senate on May 25, 2022, and sworn

into her duties on June 1, 2022. 

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 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 Total

27 5 64 27 1 2 1 127

58

84

142

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

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)
44 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 both parties 

achieve some positive result.
45 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 2022 case processing 

information. In FY 2022, MSPB processed 5,014 total cases (not including ALJ cases). Of the 4,486

IDs and addendum cases processed in the RO/FOs, 75 percent were processed in 120 days or less.28

MSPB’s quorum was restored on March 4, 2022. Because we began the year without a quorum, we 

did not set a timeliness target for FY 2022. In fact, MSPB will eliminate the HQ timeliness target for 

FY 2023 and FY 2024 because average processing time for HQ will be extremely high in the early 

years of inventory reduction, will not convey helpful or information about HQ case processing or 

inventory reduction, and will not be useful in managing the process. Therefore, although MSPB 

decided 528 cases at HQ in FY 2022, we are not reporting timeliness information for those cases.

Of note, in FY 2022, 15 PFR cases were withdrawn by order of the Clerk of the Board under a 

policy effected in May 2018. 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. 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, 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 VA adverse action cases (38 U.S.C. § 714(d)). 
46 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report29

29 In accordance with the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experiences Act, (Pub. L. 115-336). 
47 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023
48 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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.”30 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.31 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.32 

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. 

30 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. 

31 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. 

32 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. 
49 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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 
50 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

order, in response to requests to review OPM regulations, and for other assigned cases; conducts 

the agency’s PFR settlement program; and coordinates the agency’s legislative policy and 

congressional relations functions. The office 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 distributed to an international audience. 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. 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
51 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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, newsletters, research and 

perspective briefs, 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 
52 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

service, which is 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 those 

related to 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.33 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, disabling (handicapping) condition, 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.34 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.35

33 5 U.S.C. § 2301 and § 2302, respectively. And see MSPB’s website for further information on MSPs and PPPs. 

34 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).” 

35 The NDAA for FY 2020, (Pub. L. 116-92). 
53 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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

CIO Chief Information Officer

COOP Continuity of Operations Plan

CRS Congressional Research Service

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

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

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

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

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
54 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

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

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 Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation

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

SES Senior Executive Service

SHCP Strategic Human Capital Plan 

SORN System of Records Notice [NOT USED, so omit?]

TBD To Be Determined

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WPEA Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012
55 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2022-2024 March 13, 2023

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20419

www.mspb.gov - @USMSPB on Twitter