i

United States

Merit Systems Protection Board

Congressional Budget

Justification

For Fiscal Year 2013

Prepared for 

Committee on Appropriations

February 2012
ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................1

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

About MSPB.....................................................................................................................................................1

MSPB Return on Investment .........................................................................................................................2

Mission Delivery: Hallmark of a Fair, Effective, and Efficient Agency.................................. 3

Facilitating Mission Delivery Across Government .....................................................................................6

External Trends Affecting MSPB’s Mission and Performance .................................................................6

Actions Required to Address External Trends............................................................................................8

Addressing Internal Deficiencies, Deficits, and Reductions ..............................................9

Organization and Structure of MSPB .........................................................................10

Organization Chart .............................................................................................12

FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification........................................................................... 12

Summary of FY 2013 Independent Budget Request ................................................................................12

Performance Budget ......................................................................................................................................13

Summary of FY 2013 Costs..........................................................................................................................14

Efforts to reduce costs...................................................................................................................................17

Budget Schedules – FY 2011 Financial Summary and Schedule Q Employment Summary ..............18

Budget Schedules – O Object Classification.............................................................................................19

Budget Schedules – P Program and Funding............................................................................................20

Performance Plan for FY 2012 (Revised) and FY 2013 (Proposed)......................................... 21

Appendix A: Revisions to Performance Measures and Targets .................................. 40
1

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

FY 2013 Budget Request

Executive Summary

Introduction

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

to ensuring effective and efficient Federal agency performance and service to the public. The MSPs 

are, in essence, good management practices and the most fundamental function of the MSPB is to 

ensure that Federal agencies use these good management practices in managing the Federal 

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

and maintain a high quality workforce and thereby reduce staffing costs and improve organizational 

results that serve the public. A fully funded, well-run MSPB is critical to protecting the Federal merit 

systems, ensuring due process, promoting Governmentwide MSPs, and preventing Prohibited 

Personnel Practices (PPPs). This FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) includes an 

executive summary and overview of MSPB, the FY 2013 budget request, and the Annual 

Performance Plan (APP) for FY 2012 (Revised) and FY 2013 (Proposed). MSPB’s Strategic Plan 

(SP) for FY 2012 – 2016 will be sent separately.

1

About MSPB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

successor to the Commission;2 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to serve as the 

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

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

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

3

 1MSPB’s SP and APP were developed by Federal employees in accordance with Government Performance and Results

Act Modernization Act (GPRAMA) requirements and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.

2 Bogdanow, M., and Lanphear, T., “History of the Merit Systems Protection Board,” Journal of the Federal Circuit Historical 

Society, Volume 4, 2010.

3 Title 5 U.S.C. § 2301 and Title 5 U.S.C. § 2302, respectively.
2

MSPB Return on Investment

Considering MSPB’s relatively small size and budget, it provides enormous value to the Federal 

workforce, Federal agencies, and the American taxpayer in terms of a more effective and efficient 

merit-based civil service that ensures high quality service to the public. MSPB demonstrates this 

return on investment through its new Strategic Goals that fulfill our statutory mission of protecting 

and promoting merit, increasing adherence to MSPs, and preventing or reducing PPPs. 

(1) Superior, efficient adjudication and alternative dispute resolution services ensure due 

process, creating confidence in the workforce and preserving the ability to attract and 

maintain quality employees.

MSPB’s resolutions of cases are based in law, regulation, and legal precedent. Reason and 

legal analysis guide our decisions and serve as hallmarks of both our legal system and our 

merit system. As a neutral, independent third party, MSPB adjudication adds value by 

improving the fairness and consistency of the process and decisions. In addition, MSPB 

increases the efficiency of employee appeals by achieving economies of scale that would 

otherwise be impossible to achieve through separate adjudication of appeals by each agency. 

The body of legal precedent generated through adjudication, and the transparency and 

openness of the adjudication process, improve long-term effectiveness and efficiency by 

providing guidance to agencies and employees on proper behavior, the ramifications of 

improper behavior, and how to prepare and present thorough and well-reasoned cases. 

Strong enforcement of MSPB decisions ensures timely, effective resolution of current 

disputes and encourages more timely compliance with future MSPB decisions. 

FY 2011 Results: ● Exceeded decision quality targets

• 98% of cases left unchanged by the Court of Appeals for 

Federal Circuit versus target of 92% or more

● Did NOT meet adjudication timeliness targets

• 94 days for initial appeals versus 90 day target

• 213 days for PFRs versus 150 day target

• 288 days for enforcement cases versus 200 day target

● Exceeded targets on alternative dispute resolution

(2) High quality, cost-effective objective merit systems studies provide guidance and 

identify trends in the workforce, helping managers to administer more effectively and 

efficiently.

MSPB studies add value through assessing and identifying innovative and effective meritbased management policies and practices. The reports make recommendations to the 

President, Congress, OPM, and agencies regarding how to enhance policy and practice that 

will result in improved management and workforce efficiency. For example, MSPB research 

has shown that effective and efficient hiring and selection, improved merit-based

management, and greater employee engagement contribute to a highly qualified Federal 

workforce, improved organizational performance, and better service to the public. These 

factors also help reduce the occurrence and costs of PPPs that negatively affect agency and 

employee performance. Merit systems studies also help reduce the occurrence and personnel 
3

costs associated with PPPs that negatively affect agency and employee performance. For 

example, the content of the President’s hiring initiative contained several long-standing 

recommendations from MSPB studies on how to improve the hiring process. Recent 

proposed legislation also includes recommendations made in earlier MSPB reports for 

improving the supervisory workforce. MSPBs most recent reports include:

● Blowing the Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

● Telework: Weighing the Information, Determining an Appropriate Approach

● Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions

● Women in the Federal Government Ambitions and Achievements

● U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board: 2011-2013 Research Agenda

● Making the Right Connection: Targeting Best Competencies for Training

● Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees

● A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision

(3) Through third-party review of OPM policies and significant actions, the Government 

receives one additional layer of protection against the implementation of faulty policies that 

cost time and money to correct. 

Under statute, MSPB is required to review the rules, regulations, and significant actions of 

OPM. This OPM review function protects the integrity and viability of the merit systems 

and civil service, provides benefits similar to those related to merit systems studies, and 

reduces potential costs by preventing PPPs and improving adherence to MSPs. This 

provides direct value to the American taxpayer via decreased Governmentwide costs

associated with the withdrawal of policies and other corrective actions. One particular 

example provides tangible evidence of the impact MSPB has had on OPM’s regulations. 

In a 2007 report, MSPB found that OPM’s regulations regarding the appeal rights of 

probationary or trial period employees were misleading. As a result, in 2008, OPM finalized 

regulations clarifying the appeal rights of these individuals, potentially avoiding violation of 

employees’ due process rights and additional litigation.

In FY 2011, MSPB took action to formalize and strengthen its review of OPM significant 

actions and will continue to focus on review of OPM regulations beginning in FY 2012 as 

part of its overall responsibilities to protect the merit systems, promote MSPs, and prevent 

PPPs.

Mission Delivery: Hallmark of a Fair, Effective, and Efficient Agency

MSPB continues its FY 2011-12 planning initiatives to build a stronger, modern and efficient 

agency, building upon its successes under a finalized strategic plan, improved performance plan, and 

new resource management plan. Beyond the importance of these plans individually is the critical 

linkage of the plans to each other, ensuring that each employee can understand and track their 

connection to all plans and demonstrate their contributions to agency goals and objectives through 

individual performance plans. Through prioritized and linked goals and objectives, the agency and 

its employees are held accountable to specific results, and achievements are directly rewarded.
4

Beginning in FY 2011, MSPB is focusing on dynamic internal management concepts to ensure the 

delivery of mission and achievement of goals through employee engagement and smarter operations.

Because the mission of MSPB mirrors the mission of the Government itself regarding MSPs and 

PPPs, we choose to lead by example through our “Walking the Talk” initiative. By “walking the 

talk,” our daily practices demonstrate that guidance from MSPB is cost-effective, beneficial, and 

realistic. For example, in FY 2012, MSPB is establishing Executive Subcommittees to review and 

improve training and development and recognition and awards programs. To help managers and 

employees realize the intent of this initiative, MSPB employs four management concepts: Resource 

Alignment, Fostering Innovation, Minimizing Risk, and Full Engagement.

Resource Alignment

Recognizing the agency’s full potential relies on the careful alignment of agency resources. As fiscal 

environments tighten, MSPB places greater importance on the administration of assets and funding 

to ensure that we set priorities appropriately and facilitate mission delivery without unnecessary 

expense. Proper resource alignment relies on three elements working together to develop, execute 

and evaluate resource operations:

• Environmental Awareness – Discovering and monitoring external trends, potential issues, and 

unmet needs to provide an accurate picture for planning attainable mission delivery.

o Methods applied: Mission-gap analysis, workforce and legislative forecasting, and 

stakeholder participation in policy reviews.

• Operational Effectiveness – Answering the call to duty through informed target setting and 

public transparency.

o Methods applied: Annual performance and resource planning, concurrent mid-year 

reviews of programs, formal program evaluation, and improved performance 

measurement.

• Linked Performance Management – Optimizing results using analytics and rational reasoning 

through a single framework that is easy to navigate and track. 

o Methods applied: Combined assessment of mission and management performance, 

customer service evaluations that link to performance measures, transparency of 

internal and external feedback, OpenGov participation, concurrent legal and ethical 

reviews of operations and policies, and redesigned executive performance plans.

Fostering Innovation

Public and private entities often fail to make full use of the talent and knowledge that exists within 

their organization. In addition, agencies often underestimate the willingness of external partners and 

critics to provide insight and ideas. It is a priority for MSPB to continue to embrace the opinions of 

employees, stakeholders, and critics through demonstrated openness and commitment to listen and 

encourage participation in agency processes and policies. MSPB seeks to address constantly 

changing environmental and fiscal issues by improving customer service and processes to better
5

meet service demands. MSPB employs several approaches to enable employees and external 

participants to participate in initiatives aimed at improving operations. Current projects and activities 

include: 

• Public Review of MSPB Federal Regulations (in conjunction with employees)

• Formalization of legal training programs for judges and legal staff

• Public meetings to discuss merit systems studies research agenda and developing issues

• Open participation in agency planning 

• Executive subcommittees that enable and empower all levels of employees

• Investments in the increasingly popular and cost-effective mediation program

• MSP outreach and training upgraded to a strategic mission goal

• Creation of a Twitter app to allow easier access to Board information

• Fuller explanation of the decisions in non-precedential decisions

• Increased requests for amici curiae in high-profile Board cases

Minimizing Risk

Managing risk to ensure successful mission delivery remains a top priority to lessen the effects of 

uncertainty on programs, apply resources appropriately to minimize adverse events, and maximize 

the realization of any beneficial opportunities. For these reasons, MSPB broke away from its past 

practice of single-year budgeting to incorporating short- and long-term goals and contingencies that 

will shape future operations. MSPB uses a number of approaches to assess and manage risk:

• Create and implement the first Resources Management Plan (RMP) that connects short and 

long term goals to agency resources and individual performance

• Appeal to change to multi-year funding to allow for a full procurement and execution 

processes to ensure proper planning and best-use of resources

• Create a formal program evaluation function headed by a new Performance Improvement 

Officer (PIO)

• Invest in workforce development and knowledge management

• Prepare for Continuity of Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG)

• Reconstruct budget processes with “full-circle accountability” managing to mission

• Communicate changes in laws, case laws, and regulations to legal staff

• Interact frequently with Congress to keep abreast of changes or potential issues

• Evaluate customer service, and promote mission familiarity and process orientation to 

minimize the filing of improper appeals

• Implement a new strategic workforce plan (with retirement forecasting)

Full Engagement

Engagement, as a concept, is increasingly important as transparency initiatives elevate internal 

decisions and actions to a more visible, public level. Engagement assists with the identification of 

issues before they become larger problems. It can also improve operations, maximize resources, 

reduce bureaucracy, and help attract and maintain the best workers. Employee engagement provides 

employees with a stronger connection to the agency’s mission and their individual purpose, and can 
6

increase job satisfaction through empowerment and opportunity. Stakeholder engagement opens 

doors to the outside world, helping to create a better connection and justification of programs and 

activities. 

• Employee engagement is an integral part of MSPB’s RMP

• All planning and reporting is linked from agency to individual levels as demonstrated in the 

RMP (see Agency Performance Management Process) 

• An Executive Committee and Subcommittee structure to empower all employees and hold 

leaders and managers accountable

• Stakeholder outreach through formal meetings, appeals for participation in service and 

policy changes, and less formal opportunities to maintain interaction

• Establishment of an Engagement Coordinator who will serve as ombudsman in overseeing 

the health of the agency’s engagement projects 

Facilitating Mission Delivery Across The Government

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

providing excellent service to the American people. (MSPB Vision)

Protect the Merit System Principles and promote an effective Federal workforce

free of Prohibited Personnel Practices. (MSPB Mission)

MSPB continues to improve the effectiveness and long-term impact of its mission functions and 

responsibilities across the Government. Beginning in FY 2010, to increase the transparency of its 

adjudication processes and decisions, the Board began hearing oral arguments on cases with broad 

impact on the Government and the merit systems. In addition, the Board began issuing expanded 

explanations of its rationale in non-published decisions on petitions for review (PFRs) of certain 

initial decisions in order to promote understanding of the Board’s decisions by the parties. MSPB 

expects that through public review and augmentation of its Federal Regulations, MSPB adjudication 

processes will become more consistent, modern, and user friendly for appellants, appellant 

representatives and agency representatives. 

MSPB also continues to enhance outreach and education about MSPs through online activities, such 

as through the popular Merit System Principle of the Month section on MSPB’s website, Twitter 

account (@USMSPB), and greater staff availability to assist agencies and quasi-government 

organizations with their training on MSPs. This education and outreach helps ensure that MSPs are 

consistently applied throughout the Government, and provides managers with the necessary tools to 

minimize appealed actions promote better management practices, and improve employee 

engagement. MSPB judges and merit studies personnel voluntarily take on the responsibility to 

provide this education and training in addition to their regular duties.

External Trends Affecting MSPB’s Mission and Performance

A number of significant external trends and issues are likely to affect MSPB’s mission to protect the 

Federal merit systems through FY 2012 and FY 2013: 
7

• Pressure to reduce operating budgets government-wide continues to draw tensions between 

basic operations and smart investments in the workforce and agency. This tension is 

significantly compounded in agencies where a vast majority of funding is dedicated to 

salaries and other non-discretionary expenses (over 95% at MSPB) while agencies continue 

to incur higher operating costs due to standard inflation of personnel and non-personnel 

expenses.

o Through careful internal reviews and assessments of resources, MSPB has identified (but 

is not requesting at this time) $2.8 million and nine FTE in additional resources in order 

to maintain its current performance and operating status, and to cover previously 

neglected mission requirements (e.g., OPM regulation review). 

o Increases due to inflation to services and rent continue to drive down available funds for 

program improvements and personnel hiring and training, which affects overall agency 

performance (e.g. increased processing times). 

o MSPB continues to make significant progress in cutting regular operating and 

administrative expenses. The agency has also imposed a hiring freeze, delayed OPM 

regulation review as a new program, cancelled critical legal training, limited supervisory 

and other professional development opportunities, and cancelled some statutory travel 

(e.g., alternative dispute resolution program travel for mediators). It should be noted, 

however, that failure to maintain these basic investments in the workforce and 

operational programs can cost more to restore performance and service in the long run 

than the initial savings. 

• Governmentwide adjustments from mounting retirements and the consequences of budget 

cuts, Reductions in Force (RIF), and furloughs

o Expected increase in appeals due to retirements (benefits claims appeals) 

o Increase in appeals due to RIFs, furloughs, agency realignments, and other actions to 

reduce or restructure the workforce 

• More employees or applicants with Veterans’ employment rights and potential changes in 

law and jurisdiction

o Potential increases in adjudication workload, case complexity, and jurisdiction due to 

large-scale changes in law or regulation affecting merit systems and appeals

o Increased complexity in studying the merit systems and reviewing OPM rules, 

regulations, and significant actions.

• Revisions to Federal management and HR policies, authorities, and flexibilities

o Increases in appeals workload and case complexity 
8

o Increased intricacy in conducting studies and providing recommendations to ensure 

changes are managed under MSPs and free from PPPs

o Additional requirements to educate management officials and employees

• Modernization of the Federal workforce toward a knowledge-based workforce 

o Additional observation and assessment of changes to ensure innovative practices 

that support MSPs and avoid violating PPPs

o Will require coordinated modernization efforts across the Government in 

conjunction with other agencies and departments

Actions Required to Address External Trends

• Preserve the integrity and enhance the capabilities of adjudication services

o Fund adjudication staffing levels to account for pending mass retirements; may require 

small temporary increases in full-time employee (FTE) and related budget requirements.

o Continue to focus on performance measures to ensure equal agency emphasis on 

decision quality, participant perception of the process, and timeliness of hearings and 

decisions

o Expand outreach to stakeholders to improve adjudication efficiency, limit improper 

claims, and promote understanding of the adjudicatory process to Government agencies, 

employee unions and affinity groups, management organizations, good government 

groups, and others 

o Emphasize enforcement of compliance decisions and transparency of the enforcement 

process4

• Preserve the integrity of merit studies; developing regulation review capabilities

o Expand promotion of merit studies to realize the full potential benefit of study findings 

to the rest of the Government 

o Escalate outreach with Government agencies and other groups on policy and practice 

issues that affect MSPs and PPPs, restricting the implementation and impact of study 

recommendations, and the coordination of research planning

o Meet appropriate staffing levels to fulfill “new” mission requirements (OPM regulation 

review)

o Enhance the flexibility and stability of the MSPB workforce

 4 Title 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(2)
9

o Improve employee development, career training and management opportunities to 

support adjustments in mission operations

o Create opportunities for legal staff to cross-train as mediators and specialists to support 

sudden service demands (such as through a RIF

o Cross-train IT and business support staff

Addressing Internal Deficiencies, Deficits, and Reductions

Cost-cutting as a regular part of business. MSPB conducted a series of exercises aimed at 

reducing costs across the agency. The cost-cutting exercises yielded immediate results by reducing 

some operating and administrative costs. These exercises will continue as a regular part of business.

Through these actions MSPB seeks not only to optimize daily operations but also to install a 

permanent cultural change to ensure its continued success. Savings achieved include a FY 09-11 

decrease in travel by 40%, equipment by 10%, and general operations by 4.3%. 

Critical investments in workforce planning. In FY 2013, approximately 47% of the adjudication 

staff (administrative judges) will be retirement eligible over the next three years. Two years of 

training is required before a judge can work independently. This inevitability is now a pressing 

concern, especially if appeals increase in number. Therefore, hiring flexibilities (temporary increases) 

may be required to maintain adequate staffing, and additional training is necessary to maintain 

proper knowledge levels. 

Budget practices that properly articulate personnel and operational requirements. The 

pattern of budget planning that focused primarily on annual activity rather than long-term strategic 

goals has resulted in insufficient annual funding levels for personnel and operations. For years, the 

agency relied on self-imposed annual hiring delays in order to meet the expense of annual 

operations. Over time, competition between these priorities created a domino effect across all areas 

of the agency, generating and sustaining workforce and operational deficiencies that now threaten

the future accomplishment of mission. In addition to these deficiencies, unplanned contingencies 

and external demands complicate the already delicate equilibrium that MSPB holds between success 

and failure.

Efficient operations through the effective application of personnel. MSPB continues to hold 

key positions vacant including administrative judges, legal counsels, attorneys, study analysts, 

administrative specialists, and high-level management positions. Low staff numbers contribute to a 

backlog of Board cases and prevent succession planning for administrative judges. While MSPB has 

made some progress on regulation compliance, deficits remain in suitable records management, 

FOIA request processing and tracking, OpenGov initiatives, IT standards, and general reporting. 
10

Organization and Structure of MSPB

MSPB is organized into several offices designed to conduct and support its statutory functions. The 

agency has three appointed Board members and is authorized 226 FTEs with offices in Washington, 

DC (headquarters) and six regional and two field offices, which are located throughout the United 

States. 

MSPB program offices and their functions

The three Board Members adjudicate the cases brought to MSPB. The bipartisan Board consists of 

the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Member, with no more than two of its three members from the 

same political party. Board members are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and 

serve overlapping, non-renewable seven year terms. The Chairman, by statute, is the chief executive 

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

Executive Director.

The Office of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adjudicates and issues initial decisions in 

corrective and disciplinary action complaints (including Hatch Act complaints) brought by the 

Special Counsel, proposed agency actions against ALJs, MSPB employee appeals, and other cases 

assigned by MSPB. The functions of this office are currently performed by ALJs at the National 

Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under reimbursable interagency agreements.

The Office of Appeals Counsel conducts legal research and prepares proposed decisions for the 

Board in cases where a party Petitions for Review (PFRs) of an Administrative Judge’s (AJ) initial 

decision and in most other cases decided by the Board. The office prepares proposed decisions on 

interlocutory appeals of rulings made by judges, 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 headquarters, 

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

MSPB’s public information center, coordinates media relations, produces public information 

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

of Information Act and Privacy Act programs. The office also certifies official records to the courts 

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

and the Government in the Sunshine Act program.

The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity plans, implements, and evaluates MSPB’s equal 

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

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

MSPB’s managers and supervisors.

The Office of Financial and Administrative Management administers the budget, accounting, 

travel, time and attendance, human resources, procurement, property management, physical security, 

and general services functions of MSPB. It develops and coordinates internal management 

programs, including review of agency internal controls. It also administers the agency’s cross-
11

servicing agreements with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Finance Center for 

payroll services, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt for accounting 

services, and USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for human resources 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 

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

agency’s petition for review settlement program; and coordinates the agency’s legislative policy and 

congressional relations functions. The office drafts regulations, conducts MSPB’s ethics program, 

and plans and directs audits and investigations.

The Office of Information Resources Management develops, implements, and maintains 

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

out its administrative and research responsibilities.

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. The office delivers reports of these 

studies to the President and the Congress and distributes them to a national audience. The office 

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

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

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

performance plans and performance reports required by the GPRAMA.

The Office of Regional Operations oversees the agency’s six regional and two field offices, which 

receive and process appeals and related cases. It also manages MSPB’s Mediation Appeals Program 

(MAP). AJs in the regional and field offices are responsible for adjudicating assigned cases and for 

issuing fair, well-reasoned, and timely initial decisions.
12

MSPB Organization Chart

FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification

Summary of FY 2013 Independent Budget Request

The agency has determined it must exercise its statutory independent budget authority in order to 

request a correction from the proposed funding level as shown below. This correction, in the form 

of an increase of $2,407,000 accounts for accurate funding of authorized FTEs, at the level 

necessary to cover critical functions, vacant positions, succession planning, as well as a modest 

increase to related object classes. The $43,400,000 bypass request includes a transfer of $2,345,000 

from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. The table below summarizes the proposed 

and independent requests. 

 FY 12 Funding FY 13 Proposed FY 13 Independent 

 Budget Request 

Salaries and Expense $ 40,258,000 $ 38,648,000 $ 41,055,000

CSRD Reimbursement 2,345,000 2,345,000 2,345,000

Total $ 42,603,000 $ 40,993,000 $ 43,400,000 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

 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,

San Francisco, and

Washington, DC 

Field Offices 

Denver and

New York

Financial and

Administrative

Management

Information 

Resources 

Management

Executive 

Director

Human Resources Management services are provided by USDA's Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Business Services. 

Payroll services are provided by USDA's National Finance Center.

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

Bureau of the Public Debt.

VICE CHAIRMAN

Administrative Law Judge services are provided by the National Labor 

Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 

and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
13

The increase of $797,000 in our Independent Budget Request over the FY 12 funding level amounts 

to an increase of less than 2% and ensures the agency will not have to resort to adverse personnel 

actions or reductions in other object classes at a time when our workload is expected to increase.

It should be noted that the agency identified but is not requesting $2.8 million and an increase of 

nine FTEs in additional requirements-driven resources that are critical to meeting all statutory 

mission goals. These resources reflect the requirements necessary to maintain current operational 

standards, begin certain program improvements, and begin to manage a pending loss of institutional 

knowledge and staff that will affect case processing times and quality of decisions. The cost to the 

Government as a whole may vary in the form of increased time to process appeals, limitations on 

mediation program availability, possible implementation of flawed personnel regulations, and a 

decrease in special studies and educational materials on MSPs for Federal employees and managers. 

These service deficiencies can lead to lower employee satisfaction and confidence among the Federal 

workforce, which can result in an increased number of appeals filed with the MSPB. 

The decision to exercise independent budget authority is based on the urgent desire to avert a 

developing critical internal environment that will directly interfere with the accomplishment of 

MSPB’s statutory mission. This decision, after heavy deliberation and the exhaustion of other 

avenues of potential relief, is to ensure that the agency can meet its operational requirements that, in 

turn, strengthen the Federal government as a whole. In exercising its independent authority, the 

MSPB requests $41,055,000 in general funds for FY 2013 to provide for salaries and related 

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

The agency also requests a transfer of $2,345,000 from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 

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

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

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

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

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

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

administration of such appeals. The total FY 2013 bypass request of $43,400,000 will fund 226 fulltime equivalent work-years of effort.

Performance Budget

The performance budget is structured based on the MSPB Strategic Plan for FY 2012 – 2016. The 

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

performance measures support MSPB’s ability to manage and report performance over time. The 

strategic goals are:

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

safeguarding the civil service from Prohibited Personnel Practices

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 
14

Summary of FY 2013 Costs

MSPB’s FY 2013 independent budget request of $43,400,000 reflects an increase of $797,000 from 

our FY 2012 enacted level of $42,603,000. With this level of funding MSPB expects to fully support 

226 fully funded positions and FTEs, continue to maintain quality services in support of agency 

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

adjustments common to most Federal agencies as well as reductions in recognition of the changing 

economic and political environment. A discussion of our more significant increases and decreases

over the FY 2012 enacted funding level follows:

Personnel Compensation and Benefits – an increase of $630,000 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

11 Personnel Compensation $24,718 $25,218 $500

12 Personnel Benefits $6,454 $6,584 $130

Personnel compensation and benefit costs make up the largest amount of our budget submission. 

Thus, any reduction in resources affects our ability to hire and maintain a highly qualified staff at our 

requested FTE level. Our request assumes we will continue to be authorized at 226 FTEs although 

we have determined that 235 FTEs would correct budgetary deficiencies that are now emarging as 

larger, long-term concerns. Agency benefit costs, as a percentage of salaries will continue to rise as 

the percentage of the workforce under the Federal Employees Retirement System continues to 

grow.

It is important to note that MSPB has approximately 70 employees (33% of our current staff) 

eligible to retire within the next 3 years. The current lump sum leave liability for the retirement 

eligibles was recently estimated to be $1,263,000 or an average of $17,800 per retirement eligible. If 

25% of the employees eligible for retirement elect to retire each year, the agency could face annual 

lump sum leave payments of about $300,000. At the time of our estimate, this group included a 

significant number of AJs that hear our cases (26 of 55 AJs or 47% of our AJs are eligible for 

retirement). 

We estimate that if eligible AJs retire over the next 3 years the lump sum leave payments would cost 

the agency approximately $400,000. Morevover, the loss of AJs, many of whom have been 

extensively trained and who have worked for MSPB for many years, would represent a significant 

loss of institutional memory that would be hard to quantify and replace. Undoubtedly, the caseload 

for those who remain would be overwhelming. Additionally, the agency would incur substantial 

costs to train their replacements, assuming funds were available. Training an AJ to work at the full 

performance level requires approximately 2 years.
15

Travel – no increase over FY 12 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

21 Travel & Transportation of Persons $450 $450 0

Management will strive to control travel costs although it is likely the MSPB caseload will 

increase as Federal agencies reorganize their work force as a result of Governmentwide 

budget cut backs. To meet our mission all AJs must frequently travel to hearing sites distant 

from the various regional offices. While we are making better use of electronic 

conferencing, we have little control over the number of hearings that might require 

travel. 

Transportation of Things – an increase of $10,000 

 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

22 Transportation of Things $67 $77 $10

This category covers freight related costs and various courier services. We expect costs for these 

services to increase in FY 13 as the agency expects our caseload to increase.

Rent, Communications, & Utilities – an increase of $83,000 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

23 Rent, Communications & Utilities $4,379 $4,462 $83

At the time of this request, the lease for the Washington Regional offices (WRO) has expired and 

the MSPB is negotiating with the General Services Administration (GSA) on lease renewals for its 

WRO location and intends to do the same with our Denver regional office (whose lease expired in

December 2011). The agency makes rental payments to the GSA for office space in Atlanta, 

Chicago, Dallas, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. MSPB currently has commercial leases 

for office space at our Denver Field Office. All future rent payments in accordance with the new 

leases will be made to GSA. 

The balance of our request for this object class will be for network contract services, the Internet, 

and mandated Managed Trusted Internet Protocol services as well as other telecommunication 

services such as voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) and video conferencing. We expect minor 
16

increases for telecommunications and utilities. We expect postage and postage meter rental costs to 

remain unchanged.

 

Printing – an increase of $36,000 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

24 Printing & Reproduction $133 $169 $36

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

newsletter) specifically designed for MSPB. Additionally, as our case load increases, we anticipate we 

will need more printing services from GPO.

Other Contractual Services – an increase of $48,000 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

25 Other Contractual Services $3,087 $3,135 $48

MSPB expects costs to increase by about 1.5% for goods and services. This object class includes the 

agency’s Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSA) with the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Public 

Debt (BPD) for accounting, purchasing, and travel-related services and our RSA with the 

Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service for personnel services.

The cost of training and various equipment related service agreements for IT hardware is included in 

this object class. The remaining balance of our request for this category includes consulting services, 

maintenance and operations of facilities, and IT equipment and miscellaneous services. 

Supplies and Subscriptions – an increase of $392,000 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

26 Supplies & Materials $191 $583 $392

MSPB will be purchasing more on-line subscriptions and reducing purchases for paper copies from 

legal service providers such as Westlaw. Approximately $345,000 of the increase will result charging 

our on-line Westlaw subscription to object class 26. Previously, this subscription was charged to 
17

object class 31. Thus, most of the increase results from a change in classifying certain expenditures 

that formerly were charged to Equipment. 

Equipment – a decrease of $402,000 

MOC Description

FY 12 

Enacted

(000)

FY 13 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 12

(000)

31 Equipment $779 $377 ($402)

Overall, we expect equipment expenditures to decrease in FY 2013. Mostly, we will be replacing 

items at the end of their life cycle. These items include some copy machines, printers, and other IT 

related hardware and software items. A change in the way we account for certain on line 

subscriptions (Westlaw) will reduce equipment expenditures and will be expensed under supplies in 

FY 2013. 

Efforts to Reduce Costs

A change in the way the agency spends funds for daily operations has allowed MSPB to minimize 

increases for purchases of goods and services. MSPB has taken steps to reduce ravel and conference 

costs. Additionally, MSPB expects to reduce costs by the following:

• Consolidating subscriptions to online legal services, publications, and annual legal updates;

• Making greater use of conference calls, web-based training, and video conference meetings;

• Consolidating the use of a GSA schedule Court Reporting service to serve all of our regional 

offices;

• Leasing office machines such as printers, fax machines, and copiers when cost-benefit 

analysis favors leasing; and

• Participating with GSA in negotiating lease renewals resulting in rent savings.
18

Budget Schedules

Fiscal Year 2011 Financial Summary

(dollars in thousands)

Financial Sources

Appropriations $ 40,258

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund 2,579

Reimbursements 20

FY 10 Carryover Funds 573

Total Financial Sources $ 43,430

Obligations Incurred

Personnel Compensation $ 24,454

Personnel Benefits 6,435

Benefits for former Personnel 3

Travel of Things 49

Travel of Persons 305

Rental Payments 3,300

Communications, Utilities, and Miscellaneous 698

Printing and Reproduction 93

Other Services 2,942

Supplies and Materials 157

Equipment 1,144

Leasehold Improvements 6

Adjustments of PY funds 52

FY 10 Carryover Obligations 388

Reimbursable Obligations 2,588

Total Obligations Incurred $ 42,614

Schedule Q - Employment Summary

FY 2011 

Actual

FY 2012 

Enacted

FY 2013 

Request Change

Direct:

 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 203 211 211 0

Reimbursable:

 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 15 15 15

Total...

 0

218 226 226 0
19

Schedule O - Object Classification (In Thousands of Dollars)

FY 2012

Enacted

FY 2013 

By Pass 

Request Change

Direct obligations:

 Personnel compensation 24,718 25,218 500

 Civilian personnel benefits 6,451 6,584 133

 Benefits for former personnel 3 0 -3

 Travel and transportation of persons 450 450 0

 Transportation of things 67 77 10

 Rental payments to GSA 3,060 3,400 340

 Rental payments to others 582 291 -291

 Communications, utilities, and

 miscellaneous charges 737 771 34 

 Printing and reproduction 133 169 36

 Advisory and assistance services 0 50 50

 Other services 1,345 1,425 80

 Other purchases of goods and services

 from government accounts 1,197 1,159 -38

 Operation & maintenance of facilities 25 26 1

 Operation & maintenance of equipment 520 475 -45

 Supplies & Materials ** 191 583 392

 Equipment 779 377 -402

 Leasehold Improvements... 0 0 0

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

Total New Obligations... $ 42,603 $ 43,400 $ 797

** Some items classified under BOC 31 (Equipment) to be classified under BOC 26 (Supplies) starting in FY 

13.
20

Schedule P - Program and Financing (In Thousands of Dollars)

FY 2011 

Enacted

FY 2012 

Enacted

FY 2013

by-pass

Request

Obligations by program activity:

 Direct programs:

Total new obligations 42,857 40,258 43,400

Budgetary resources available for 

obligation: 

 New budget authority (gross) 42,857 42,603 43,400

 Total new obligations (-) - 42,857 - 42,603 -43,400

 Unobligated balance expiring/withdrawn 0 0 0

New budget authority (gross), detail:

 Appropriation 40,258 40,258 41.055

 Offsetting collections (cash) 20 20 20 

 Transferred from the Civil Service

 Retirement & Disability Fund (24-8135) 2,579 2,345 2,345

 Total new budget authority (gross) 42,857 42,623 43,420

Change in obligated balances:

 Obligated balance, start of year 4,590 4,590 4,590

 Total new obligations 42,857 42,623 43,420

 Total outlays (gross) (-) - 42,857 - 42,623 -43,420

 Adjustments in expired accounts 0 0 0

 Obligated balance, end of year 4,590 4,590 4,590

Outlays (gross), detail:

 Outlays from new discretionary

 Authority 38,637 38,403 39,200

 Outlays from discretionary balances 4,200 4,200 4,200 

 Total outlays (gross) 42,837 42,603 43,400

Offsets:

 From Federal sources - 2,579 - 2,345 -2,345

Net budget authority and outlays:

 Budget authority 40,258 40,258 41,055

 Outlays 40,258 40,258 41,055
21

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Performance Plan for 

FY 2012 (Revised) and FY 2013 (Proposed)

Introduction

A highly qualified, diverse Federal workforce managed in accordance with the Merit System 

Principles (MSPs) and in a manner free from Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs) is critical to 

ensuring agency performance and service to the public. The MSPs are, in essence, good management 

practices that help ensure that the Federal Government is able to recruit, select, develop, and 

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

results for the American people. The PPPs are specific proscribed behaviors that undermine the 

MSPs and adversely affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the workforce and the Government. 

The fundamental function of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is to ensure that the 

Federal workforce is managed under the MSPs and protected from the PPPs. 

About MSPB

MSPB has its origin in the Pendleton Act of 1883, which was passed following the assassination of 

President James A. Garfield by a disgruntled Federal job seeker. The Pendleton Act created the Civil 

Service Commission (CSC), which implemented the use of competitive examinations to support the 

appointment of qualified individuals to Federal positions in a manner based on merit and free from 

partisan political pressure. This improved Government effectiveness and efficiency by helping to 

ensure that a stable, highly qualified Federal workforce was available to provide effective service to 

the American people. Over time, it became clear that the CSC could not properly, adequately, and 

simultaneously set managerial policy, protect the merit systems, and adjudicate appeals. Concern 

over this conflict of interest in the CSC’s role as both rule-maker and judge was a principal 

motivating factor behind enactment of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). The CSRA 

replaced the CSC with three new agencies: MSPB as the successor to the Commission;5 the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM) to serve as the President’s agent for Federal workforce 

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

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

merit systems as the MSPs and delineated the PPPs.6

MSPB inherited the adjudication functions of the Commission and provides due process to 

employees and agencies as an independent, third-party adjudicatory authority for employee appeals 

of adverse actions and retirement decisions. The CSRA gave MSPB broad new authority to conduct 

independent, objective studies of the Federal merit systems and of Federal human capital 

management issues. It also gave MSPB the authority and responsibility to review and act on OPM 

rules and regulations when a PPP is involved, and to review and report on OPM significant actions.7

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

Society, Volume 4, 2010.

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

7 Title 5 U.S.C § 1204(a)(3), § 1204 (a)(4), and § 1206, respectively.
22

Since passage of the CSRA, Congress has given jurisdiction to MSPB to hear cases and complaints 

filed under a variety of other laws.8 In summary, the statutory functions of MSPB include 

adjudicating a wide range of employee appeals, enforcing compliance with MSPB decisions, 

conducting studies of the Federal merit systems, and reviewing OPM rules, regulations, and 

significant actions. 

Serving the Merit Systems, the Federal Workforce, and the Public

Considering MSPB’s relatively small size and budget, it provides enormous value to the Federal 

workforce and Federal agencies, and to the American taxpayers in terms of better service to the 

public and a more effective and efficient merit-based civil service. MSPB adds value by providing 

superior adjudication of employee appeals, including alternative dispute resolution, which ensures 

due process and results in decisions that are based in law, regulation, and legal precedent and not on 

non-merit or subjective factors. MSPB’s adjudication process is guided by reason and legal analysis, 

which are hallmarks of both our Nation’s legal system and our merit system. As a neutral, 

independent third party, MSPB’s adjudication of employee appeals 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, work together to improve the long-term 

effectiveness and efficiency of the civil service. They support better adherence to MSPs and 

prevention of PPPs by providing guidance to agencies and employees on proper behavior and the 

ramifications of improper behavior. This adjudication information also improves the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the adjudication process by helping the involved parties understand the law, and 

improving their ability to prepare and present thorough and well-reasoned cases. Strong 

enforcement of MSPB decisions ensures timely and 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 assessing current management 

policies and practices, identifying innovative and effective merit-based management policies and 

practices, and making recommendations for improvements. For example, MSPB research has shown 

that effective and efficient hiring and selection, improved merit-based management, and greater 

employee engagement contribute to a highly qualified Federal workforce, improved organizational 

performance, and better service to the public. These factors also help reduce the occurrence and 

costs of PPPs that negatively affect agency and employee performance. Review of OPM rules, 

regulations, and significant actions protects the integrity and viability of the merit systems and civil 

service, improves adherence to MSPs, and provides benefits similar to those related to merit systems 

studies. These reviews also help reduce costs in terms of fewer PPPs, less employee misconduct, 

fewer adverse actions, and fewer unsubstantiated appeals. This benefits American taxpayers in terms 

of decreased Governmentwide costs and increased confidence that the Government is doing its job 

and appropriately managing the workforce.

 8 Including the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the Veterans Employment 

Opportunity Act (VEOA), the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43, and all those set out at 5 

C.F.R., Part 1201.3.
23

Linking this Plan to Other Agency Documents 

This Annual Performance Plan (APP) is based on the MSPB Strategic Plan (SP) for FY 2012–2016. 

The new SP includes an updated agency mission statement, new vision and organizational values 

statements, more outcome-oriented strategic goals, and revised long-term measures in order to more 

thoroughly encompass MSPB’s broader role in protecting merit and preventing PPPs as intended by 

the CSRA. The new Strategic Goals move beyond previous Strategic Goals to include all of MSPB’s 

statutory functions and responsibilities. Strategic Goal 1 focuses on reviewing and taking action on 

individual appeals and on reviewing and assessing existing and proposed merit system laws, 

regulations, and practices to identify best practices and areas for improvement. Strategic Goal 2 

focuses on informing and encouraging policy-makers to take actions that improve merit; conducting 

outreach to improve the adherence to MSPs and prevention of PPPs in the workplace; and 

providing educational standards, materials, and guidance to improve the understanding of merit, 

MSPs, and PPPs. These two Strategic Goals underscore the importance of applying the results of 

our work under Strategic Goal 1 to protecting merit, strengthening the merit systems, increasing 

adherence to MSPs, and preventing or reducing PPPs in the future under Strategic Goal 2.

The FY 2012 (Revised)–2013 (Proposed) APP includes strategic objectives as program performance 

goals.9

Beginning in FY 2012, MSPB will administer its internal management and administrative functions 

in support of the mission goals through an internal Resources Management Plan (RMP) rather than 

the SP or the APP. The RMP will also link other agency documents, such as the Strategic Human 

Capital Management Plan, Equal Employment Opportunity Reporting Management Directive 715, 

Employee Engagement Plan, Information Technology Strategic Plan, Open Government Plan, and 

other similar documents. Individual performance plans for the agency’s employees and Senior 

Executives are linked to the RMP and the APP, as appropriate. MSPB reports program performance 

results compared to its APPs, along with financial accountability results, in the annual Performance 

and Accountability Report (PAR). The SP, APPs, and PARs are posted on MSPB’s website, when 

appropriate and in accordance with GPRAMA and OMB guidance.

The APP includes performance measures and annual performance targets designed to move 

the agency incrementally on a path to achieve its Strategic Goals. The performance measures include 

the outcomes, outputs, and processes that are critical to successful achievement of our performance 

goals. The performance goals, measures, and targets describe what we can accomplish with the 

budgetary and full-time equivalent (FTE) resources enacted for FY 2012 and requested in the FY 

2013 Congressional Budget Justification. In recognition of this tight budgetary environment, MSPB 

has intentionally requested fewer resources for FY 2012 and FY 2013 than those justified by our 

responsibilities. This reduction is reflected in the targets for case processing timeliness, number of 

merit systems studies, program evaluation, and more limited progress toward some strategic 

outcome goals. If budgetary and/or FTE resources approved for FY 2013 fall short of the requested 

amount, MSPB may need to further adjust the measures and FY 2013 targets. 

 9 In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act (GPRAMA) and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, MSPB neither defines priority goals nor has a specific role in achieving 

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

referenced in the Executive Order on ‘Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government.’ MSPB does 

not have any low-priority programs, so no MSPB activities are reported in The 2013 Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings (CCS) 

Volume of the President’s Budget which identifies the lower-priority program activities under the GPRAMA, 31 U.S.C. 

1115(b)(10). The public can access the volume at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget.
24

This page intentionally left blank.
25

Mission, Vision, Values, Strategic Goals, and Objectives of MSPB 

MSPB Mission

MSPB Vision

MSPB Organizational Values

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

appropriate scientific research methods to conduct our studies and make 

practical recommendations for improvement; and develop and use 

appropriate processes to oversee the regulations and significant actions of 

OPM. We will interact with our customers and stakeholders in a professional, 

respectful, and courteous manner. We will strive to be a model merit-based 

organization by applying the lessons we learn in our work to the internal 

management of MSPB.

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

be inclusive in considering the various perspectives and interests of 

stakeholders in our work, and in our external and internal interactions with 

individuals and organizations. 

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

targets. 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 impact of 

our products through outreach efforts.

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

providing excellent service to the American people.

Protect the Merit System Principles and promote an effective Federal workforce free of 

Prohibited Personnel Practices.
26

MSPB 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.

Objectives/Performance Goals:

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

and efficient adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes.

1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions.

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

capital management issues.

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

Office of Personnel Management, as appropriate. 

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

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

Prohibited Personnel Practices.

Objectives/Performance Goals:

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

that strengthen Federal merit systems laws and regulations.

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

prevention of PPPs in the workplace through outreach.

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

the use of educational standards, materials, and guidance established by 

MSPB.
27

Measuring Achievement of Our Performance Goals

Appendix A contains additional information about changes in our performance measures and 

targets.

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

safeguarding the civil service from Prohibited Personnel Practices. 

1A. Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of appeals supported by fair 

and efficient adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes.

1A-1 Percent of Petition for Review (PFR) decisions that are reversed or remanded to 

administrative judges (AJs), adjusted for those due to changes in precedent or other issues 

not due to error or oversight.

Results: FY 2007: 9%

FY 2008: 6%

FY 2009: 5%

FY 2010: 9%

FY 2011: 7% 

Targets: FY 2012: 10% or fewer 

FY 2013: 10% or fewer

1A-2 Percent of MSPB decisions left unchanged (affirmed or dismissed) upon review by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Results: FY 2007: 91%

FY 2008: 87%

FY 2009: 92%

FY 2010: 92%

FY 2011: 98% 

Targets: FY 2012: 92% or more

FY 2013: 92% or more 

1A-3 Percent of adjudication participants surveyed who agree MSPB adjudication processes 

are fair, open, accessible, understandable, and easy to use.

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

1A-4 Average case processing time for initial appeals.

Results: FY 2007: 89 days

FY 2008: 87 days

FY 2009: 83 days
28

FY 2010: 89 days

FY 2011: 94 days 

Targets: FY 2012: 100 days or fewer 

FY 2013: 100 days or fewer

1A-5 Average case processing time for petitions for review of initial appeals (PFRs).

Results: FY 2007: 132 days

FY 2008: 112 days

FY 2009: 94 days

FY 2010: 134 days

FY 2011: 213 days 

Targets: FY 2012: 195 days or fewer 

FY 2013: 170 days or fewer

1A-6 Percent of participants in the ADR programs (including initial appeals settlement and 

Mediation Appeals Program (MAP)) surveyed who agree the ADR process was helpful, 

valuable, and non-coercive, even if no agreement was reached.

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

1A-7 Proportion of initial appeals filed electronically.

Results: FY 2007: 29%

FY 2008: 37%

FY 2009: 39%

FY 2010: 43%

FY 2011: 48% 

Targets: FY 2012: 44% or more

FY 2013: 46% or more

1A-8 Proportion of pleadings submitted electronically.

Results: FY 2008 and prior years: New measure in FY 2009

FY 2009: 28%

FY 2010: 36%

FY 2011: 44% 

Targets: FY 2012: 38% or more

FY 2013: 40% or more

1B. Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions.

1B-1 Average processing time for enforcement cases.

Results: FY 2008 and prior years: New measure and target in FY 2009

FY 2009: 171 days

FY 2010: 180 days

FY 2011: 288 days 
29

Targets: FY 2012: 200 days or fewer

FY 2013: 200 days or fewer

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

management issues. 

1C-1 Percent of external studies stakeholders surveyed who agree that study reports are 

objective, timely, well written, and include recommendations that can be implemented at the 

appropriate level.

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

1C-2 Number and scope (percent of the workforce, agencies, or policy areas impacted) of 

merit systems studies reports published each year.

Results: FY 2007: Three reports completed or published 

FY 2008: Six reports completed or published

FY 2009: Six reports completed or published

FY 2010: Five reports completed or published

FY 2011: Four external and four internal studies completed

Targets: FY 2012: Three-five merit system reports completed

FY 2013: Three-five merit system reports completed

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

of Personnel Management, as appropriate. 

1D-1 Number and scope (percent of the workforce, agencies, or policy areas impacted) of 

OPM rules and regulations, or implementation of the same, reviewed. 

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Conduct after-action review of MSPB’s actions on at

least one of the major changes in OPM regulations or

rules over the last four years

FY 2013: Establish regulations review and performance

 measurement process and set future targets

1D-2 Number and scope (percent of the workforce, agencies, or policy areas impacted) of 

OPM significant actions reviewed and reported.

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Conduct after-action review of at least one of OPM’s

 significant actions over the last four years

FY 2013: Establish significant actions review and performance

 measurement process and set future targets
30

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

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

Personnel Practices. 

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

that strengthen Federal merit systems laws and regulations. 

2A-1 Number and scope of contacts made with Governmentwide policy-makers (Congress, 

Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO), OPM, and others involved in merit systems 

policy) focused on supporting or improving Governmentwide merit systems laws, 

regulations, rules, Executive Orders, and other policies.

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

2A-2 Number of references to MSPB decisions, reports, newsletters, web content, or other 

materials in policy papers, legislation, professional literature, Executive Orders, or the media. 

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

2A-3 Number, type, and scope of MSPB products created and made available to inform 

policy makers on improvements to merit systems policies, laws, and/or regulations.

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

2B. Support and improve the practice of merit, adherence to MSPs, and prevention 

of PPPs in the workplace through outreach. 

2B-1 Number of views and/or accesses of MSPB precedential decisions, studies reports, 

and other web-based materials meant to improve the practice of merit, adherence to MSPs, 

or prevention of PPPs in the workplace.

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

2B-2 Number and scope of MSBP contacts with practitioners and stakeholders focused on 

improving the practice of merit, improving adherence to MSPs, and preventing PPPs in the 

workplace. 

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results
31

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

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

2C-1 Number, scope, and type of educational information, materials, or guidance about the 

merit systems, MSPs, PPPs, MSPB decisions, the appeals process, studies, newsletters, etc., 

that are viewed or accessed from MSPB’s website. 

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results

2C-2 Number and type of merit systems educational materials and guidance MSPB makes 

available. 

Results: FY 2011 and prior years: New measure in FY 2012

Targets: FY 2012: Establish measurement process and set future targets

FY 2013: TBD based on FY 2012 results
32

This page intentionally left blank.
33

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish Our Goals

Means and Strategies for Strategic Goal 1

1. Provide effective and efficient adjudication of appeals in our regional and field offices and at 

headquarters and improve the transparency of the adjudication process.

2. Ensure continuity of legal expertise; increase legal training and expertise of adjudication staff; 

and monitor adjudication performance and accountability.

3. Appropriately balance quality of adjudication decisions, timeliness of case processing, and 

customer satisfaction with the appeals process, within available resources.

4. Provide effective and impartial ADR services (including settlement and mediation) to meet 

the needs of the involved parties.

5. Ensure effective representation of MSPB in cases brought before other adjudication bodies, 

such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

6. Provide effective and efficient processing of requests for enforcement of MSPB decisions 

and improve the transparency of the enforcement process.

7. Conduct independent, objective, and timely studies of the Federal merit systems and Federal 

management issues and practices, and expeditiously report findings and recommendations to 

the President, Congress, Federal HR policy-makers, practitioners, and other stakeholders. 

8. Use periodic surveys to assess and report on the overall health of the Federal merit systems, 

practice of merit, and occurrence of PPPs.

9. Expand MSPB’s studies program capacity and increase the value and impact of studies.

10. Expand and strengthen the review of OPM rules, regulations, and significant actions and 

take action, as appropriate, to ensure adherence to MSPs and avoidance of PPPs.

Means and Strategies for Strategic Goal 2

1. Use periodic surveys and other means to assess and report on the overall health of the 

Federal merit systems, practice of merit, and occurrence of PPPs.

2. Translate information from adjudication, merit systems studies, and OPM review into 

outreach products designed to influence actions by policy-makers and practitioners that will 

support merit, improve adherence to MSPs, and prevent PPPs. 

3. Provide information about adjudication processes, outcomes, and legal precedent to support 

adjudication participants’ ability to prepare and file strong cases with MSPB. 

4. Develop educational standards, materials, and guidelines on merit, MSPs, PPPs, and the 

importance of a merit-based civil service to ensuring excellent service to the public. 

5. Encourage agencies to use MSPB’s educational standards, materials, and guidelines to 

implement compelling educational programs for Federal employees and the public by 

recognizing other agencies’ best practices on the MSPB website, or in MSPB reports.

6. Increase transparency and outreach and make MSPB products and educational information 

widely available through the website, social media outlets, and other appropriate avenues. 
34

Agency-wide Administrative and Support Means and Strategies (Administered through the 

RMP)

1. Manage people effectively and efficiently. 

a. Hire and retain a diverse and highly qualified legal, analytic, and administrative 

workforce that can effectively accomplish and support the knowledge-based work of 

the agency.

b. Walk-the-talk – implement appropriate recommendations from study reports to 

improve adherence to MSPs and avoidance of PPPs. 

2. Manage budget, financial, and other resources effectively and efficiently.

a. Use people and budgetary resources effectively and efficiently to ensure adequate 

staff are available and prepared to accomplish our goals and continue to provide 

value, now and in the future. 

b. Improve budget planning and development to ensure complete justification of funds, 

people, operational requirements, and contingencies; ensure MSPB has the resources 

it needs to accomplish its mission; and prevent the use of routine hiring delays to 

fund operational and mission requirements.

3. Manage agency information technology (IT) and information services functions effectively 

and efficiently. 

a. Ensure access to and increase the use of e-Appeal Online.

b. Continue to improve efficiency including shifting from paper-based work processes 

and products to electronic work processes and products. 

c. Develop and implement IT hardware, software, and systems plans and schedules to 

support effective and efficient MSPB adjudication, studies, OPM review, and 

administrative programs.

d. Improve the ability to efficiently administer and host surveys in support of our 

studies function and better leverage the high-quality Governmentwide data we 

collect.

e. Manage information services functions, including information content, records 

management, Freedom of Information Act, Open Government, and related 

programs, to ensure information is appropriately available and accessible to internal 

and external customers

f. Effectively manage communication and public relations programs, including the use 

of electronic and social media, to provide appropriate and timely information to 

stakeholders and improve the impact of our programs.

4. Manage other processes and resources effectively and efficiently.

a. Improve MSPB’s program evaluation capability and performance measurement 

validity and reliability.
35

b. Improve efficiency and effectiveness of other administrative and management 

programs and processes including appropriate use of interagency agreements and 

contracts.

c. Ensure MSPB internal and external policies and regulations are current, written in 

plain language, and accessible to and understandable by those who need them.
36

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance 

A number of significant external trends and internal challenges are likely to affect MSPB’s mission in 

FY 2012 and FY 2013. A list of these trends and challenges and their potential affect on MSPB 

follows. 

External Trends 

• More employees or applicants with Veterans’ employment rights and potential changes in 

law and jurisdiction. 

o Large increases in adjudication workload and jurisdiction, increased case complexity. 

o Increased complexity in studying the merit systems and reviewing OPM’s rules, 

regulations, and significant actions.

• Revisions to management and HR policies, authorities, and flexibilities.

o Increases in appeals workload and case complexity. 

o Increased complexity in studying merit and making recommendations to ensure 

workforce is managed under the MSPs and free from PPPs.

o Increased complexity in studies to ensure that new and amended HR policies 

support adherence to MSPs and avoidance of PPPs. 

o Increased need to promote merit and educate Federal managers and employees 

about Federal merit systems, MSPs, and PPPs.

• Increases in the number of Federal employees retiring, and need to ensure employees have 

the competencies to perform knowledge-based work. 

o Increase in appeals workload due to increased retirements (e.g., benefits claims and 

alleged forced retirement cases). 

o Need to study how changes in the workforce and type of work impact MSPs and 

PPPs.

o Increased need to promote merit in the Federal workplace and educate Federal 

managers and employees about Federal merit systems, MSPs, and PPPs.

• Budget cuts, Reductions in Force (RIF), and workforce adjustments.

o Increase in appeals workload due to potential RIFs and actions taken in lieu of or in 

preparation for RIFs. 

o Need to conduct studies and make recommendations on how to ensure merit and 

avoid PPPs.

Internal Management Issues and Challenges

• Mission planning and ensuring optimal effectiveness.
37

o Improve and strengthen performance of our statutory function to review and take 

appropriate action on OPM rules and regulations.10

o Ensure MSPB’s SPs and APPs encompass all statutory functions and focus on our role 

to protect and promote merit. 

o Improve integration of performance planning with the annual budget process to ensure 

legislative intent to protect and promote merit. 

o Strengthen agency culture and structure, and internal and external agency 

communication, to improve performance in the short and long term.

• Effectiveness of adjudication and enforcement.

o Address external stakeholder concerns about MSPB case processing time constraints and 

the potential negative impact such constraints have on case development and discovery.

o Balance performance measures of adjudication decision quality, timeliness, and participant 

satisfaction with the adjudication process. 

o Increase outreach to improve adjudication effectiveness and efficiency, and to improve 

understanding of the adjudicatory process.

o Increase emphasis on enforcement of compliance decisions.11

o Ensure a sufficient number of adjudication staff who have the necessary competencies, 

knowledge, and training to perform their work.

o Prepare for anticipated retirement of adjudication staff.

• Effectiveness of merit systems studies.

o Improve distribution and promotion of study findings and recommendations to 

capitalize on savings via better management, higher employee engagement, and fewer 

appeals.

o Increase studies staff to maximize the value and impact of studies to the Government 

and American taxpayers.

o Increase outreach to coordinate research plans and improve implementation of study 

recommendations that improve Federal management and service to the public.

o Improve ability to administer surveys and use collected data to increase effectiveness and 

efficiency of Government as a whole.

• Effectiveness of performance and budget planning, and resource management.

o Justify budgets to support the full mission of MSPB and improve planning for 

operational requirements, program improvements, and contingencies. 

o Eliminate the need to delay hiring to fund operational and mission requirements. 

o Improve workforce planning, including succession planning and support for employee 

development, to ensure and sustain the availability of high-quality, diverse professional 

and technical staff and establish an accurate and stable staffing structure (33% of MSPB 

employees, including 47% of AJs, will be retirement eligible within the next three years.).

 10 Title 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(4)

11 Title 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(2)
38

Program Evaluation and 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. Effective program evaluation is critical to 

ensuring that MSPB can continue to effectively and efficiently achieve its mission, and provide 

value, now and in the future. 

MSPB is committed to high-quality program evaluation. However, ensuring our ability to perform 

our statutory mission, as well as ensuring compliance with requirements of the GPRAMA and recent 

program evaluation guidance from the OMB, will require increased resources and program 

evaluation staff. A relatively small increase in MSPB’s program evaluation resources and staff will 

likely yield a large return in efficiency and cost savings for MSPB. This will, in turn, improve the 

value MSPB brings to agencies, Federal employees, individual parties to cases, and to the public.

Performance Measurement: Verification and Validation of Performance Information

Most of the quantitative measures of adjudication performance come from MSPB’s case 

management system. Other quantitative and qualitative performance measures are reported by 

MSPB’s program offices. MSPB also collects customer satisfaction data from adjudication and merit 

systems studies customers and stakeholders, and from internal customers of our administrative 

programs. Better coordination and oversight of performance measurement processes, including 

internal and external customer surveys, will help ensure consistency, validity, and verifiability of the 

performance data used to manage MSPB programs and included in agency plans and reports. 

Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement Schedule

In FY 2012, MSPB will develop and establish policies and guidance for program evaluation and 

performance measurement verification and validation. Assuming requested resources are available, 

MSPB may have one to three evaluation or data verification/validation projects going on per year. 

The number of such projects will also depend on the scope and objectives of the project and the 

nature and complexity of the program or process being studied. If such resources are available in FY 

2012 and 2013, MSPB plans to begin program evaluation and data verification/validation projects as 

indicated below.

Program or Performance Measurement System Evaluation Start Year

PFR case processing 2012

Internal and external customer satisfaction/service surveys 2012

Case processing in the regional and field offices 2013
39

This page intentionally left blank.
40

Appendix A: Revisions to Performance Measures and Targets 

The performance measures and targets proposed for FY 2012 and FY 2013 reflect critical outcomes, 

outputs, or processes needed to achieve MSPB’s performance goals. Tracking progress on our 

performance goals over time will provide critical evidence of our achievement of our Strategic 

Goals. The measures and targets established in this plan are consistent with the budget enacted for 

FY 2012 and the proposed budget for FY 2013. MSPB may adjust the measures and targets based 

on Congressional actions taken on the FY 2013 budget, interim FY 2012 performance results, and 

other factors that may have an affect on our mission and goals.

The four performance goals under Strategic Goal 1 include 13 measures and cover MSPB’s 

functions involved in adjudicating cases, enforcing compliance with decisions, conducting merit 

systems studies, and reviewing and taking appropriate action on OPM rules, regulations, and 

significant actions. The three performance goals under Strategic Goal 2 include seven measures and 

reflect our efforts to ensure our work has an impact on strengthening merit systems laws and 

regulations; improving the practice of merit, increasing adherence to MSPs, and preventing PPPs; 

and advancing the understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs. A review of the revisions in 

performance measures and targets for FY 2012 and FY 2013 is provided below.

Strategic Goal 1 

MSPB plans to continue using selected measures of adjudication quality and timeliness and merit 

systems studies output that we have used for several years. The customer feedback measures related 

to our work will be assessed and redefined in FY 2012 as part of our effort to restructure our 

external customer satisfaction and customer service survey program. Restructuring our survey 

program will increase the validity and reliability of our customer survey data and support our efforts 

to improve customer service in accordance Executive Order 13571. The restructuring of the survey 

program involves customer feedback on the adjudication process (measure 1A-3), the ADR process 

(measure 1A-6), and merit systems study reports (measure 1C-1). Other measures have been 

eliminated, redefined, and/or shifted to performance goals under Strategic Goal 2. New measures 

will be developed for assessing MSPB performance in reviewing and taking appropriate action on 

OPM rules, regulations, and significant actions (measures 1D-1 and 1D-2).

Adjudication: In recent years, MSPB has reported on more measures of timeliness relative to other 

components of our adjudication function. Timeliness measures are quantifiable and thus provide an 

easy way to track and present adjudication results. However, timeliness is only one component of a 

successful adjudication function. MSPB is committed to using a more balanced set of measures for 

evaluating its adjudication function with more equal emphasis on measures of decision quality, 

processing timeliness, and participant feedback on fairness and openness of the adjudication and 

ADR processes. 

To measure the quality of initial decisions, MSPB will continue to use the percent of PFR decisions 

that are remanded or reversed to MSPB judges for a new decision, adjusted for changes in 

precedent, or other reasons not due to error or oversight of the AJ (measure 1A-1). In FY 2011, 

seven percent of PFR decisions were reversed or remanded to AJs. We anticipate an increase in the 

number of initial appeals filed in the next few years due to several factors: Governmentwide budget 

constraints leading agencies to implement an increasing number of RIFs or other appealable actions
41

to reduce the size of the workforce; an increase in the number of retirements of Federal employees; 

and an increase in the number of employees and applicants with veterans employment rights 

returning to or seeking Federal jobs. In addition, 47 percent of our current AJs will be eligible to 

retire in the next three years, and under current budget constraints, it is likely to take longer to 

replace them in a timely way. Given these factors and the variability of actual results on this measure 

over the years, the FY 2012 and FY 2013 targets for this measure will remain 10 percent or fewer.

To measure the quality of Board decisions, we will continue to use the percent of decisions left 

unchanged by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (measure 1A-2). In FY 2011, 98 

percent of Board decisions were left unchanged by the Court, which is the highest level in over 10 

years. We are pleased with this result especially in light of our longer PFR processing time, which 

will be discussed shortly. While we would like to maintain this result, several factors will likely 

impact our success on this measure over the next several years. We may experience an increase in 

cases filed with the Board due to the same factors discussed above that affect initial appeals. In 

addition to increasing the appeals workload, these factors may also raise legal issues that have not 

been examined in a number of years leading to differences in the way the Board and the Court view 

such issues. This could result in fewer cases being left unchanged by the Court. Despite the factors 

that may affect the Court’s actions on our cases, we are committed to maintaining the quality of our 

Board decisions and are retaining the 92 percent or greater target for this measure for FY 2012 and 

FY 2013. 

While there are various ways to measure timeliness, MSPB will use average case processing time as 

the measure of adjudication timeliness. The number of days it takes to process a case from when it 

arrives to when it is closed, averaged over all of the cases closed each year, represents a 

straightforward and meaningful measure of overall processing time at the agency level.12 The average 

case processing time for initial appeals increased to 94 days in FY 2011, which represents the longest 

time in recent years (measure 1A-4). This occurred in part because of the retirement of several very 

experienced adjudication staff members, accompanied by restrictions on hiring replacements 

resulting from budget limitations in the last several years. These staff losses and hiring restrictions, 

along with the two-three year period that it takes for new staff members to reach full performance 

levels, have collectively reduced the overall capacity of our adjudication staff to process initial 

appeals. The budget restrictions are likely to continue for the next several years, which will greatly 

limit MSPB’s ability to replace the nearly 50 percent of its AJs that will be eligible to retire in the 

next three years. Having fewer AJs, the expected increase in the number of appeals (discussed 

above), and our commitment to maintain decision quality, will likely result in an increase in initial 

appeals processing time. Separate from issues related to caseload and resources, there have been 

concerns from adjudication participants and stakeholders that current MSPB case processing time 

constraints have had a potential negative impact on the ability of the parties to thoroughly develop 

their cases and fully execute the discovery process. There is also a growing consensus that the legal 

and factual aspects of cases have become more complex over time. Finally, MPSB is updating its 

adjudication regulations, which will likely impact processing timeliness. For all of these reasons, it is 

necessary to increase the target for average processing time for initial appeals to 100 days or fewer 

for FY 2012 and FY 2013. Depending on actions taken on the FY 2013 budget, it may be necessary 

to further increase these targets.

 12 MSPB will continue to track and may occasionally include other information about timeliness in its reports. However, 

MSPB will no longer include the proportion of cases closed within specific time standards in its performance plans.
42

Average case processing time for PFRs increased to 213 days in FY 2011 (measure 1A-5). PFR 

processing time is affected to some degree by MSPB’s intentional efforts to improve the 

transparency and understanding of and participation in the Board’s decision-making process. The 

Board holds oral arguments or requests amicus briefs in cases with broad and/or significant impact 

on the workforce or on Federal labor law. While these processes may lengthen the processing time 

for these select cases, they also improve the breadth and depth of information available for the 

Board to consider in making its decision on these significant cases. In addition, the Board is 

providing additional information in non-precedential PFR decisions and recently began posting 

these decisions on the MSPB website. Providing this additional information improves the 

transparency of Board’s decision-making process for the parties involved with the case and for our 

reviewing Court. Increased transparency also improves understanding of the Board’s decisionmaking process for those who may file appeals with the Board in the future, thus improving the 

long-term effectiveness and efficiency of the process. While the timeliness of PFR processing is 

longer than we would like, the quality of Board decisions is high, and we are satisfied that our efforts 

to improve transparency and participation are important to the overall quality and understanding of 

the appeals process. 

PFR case processing time has also increased due to a lack of budget resources, which has prevented 

or delayed our ability to hire adjudication staff over the last two-three years resulting in a relatively 

high number of vacancies for the writing attorneys who draft Board decisions. Anticipated budget 

restrictions in the next few years will likely result in limited potential for filling these vacancies in the 

near term. In addition, MSPB anticipates the arrival of a new Board Member in FY 2012. This may 

also lead to slowed PFR processing time as the new Board Member adjusts to MSPB processes, and 

the writing attorneys learn the views and style of the new Board Member. Furthermore, for reasons 

similar to those discussed above for initial appeals, we anticipate an increase in the number of PFRs 

filed with the Board over the next few years. In addition, MSPB is currently in the process of 

updating its adjudication regulations, which may also affect processing timeliness. Despite the 

factors that may slow PFR processing time, MSPB’s longer-term goal is to achieve an average 

processing time for PFRs of 150 days by the end of FY 2014. To make progress toward this target, 

we have set our FY 2012 target for PFR average processing time at 195 days or fewer, and the FY 

2013 target at 170 days or fewer. This will be a very challenging undertaking. MSPB intends to begin 

an evaluation of the PFR process in FY 2012 (contingent on obtaining requested resources), which 

may help identify improvements in PFR processing that will increase timeliness while preserving 

decision quality. Depending on actions taken on the FY 2013 budget, interim FY 2012 results, and 

other factors, MSPB may need to further increase the targets for average PFR processing time. 

It is important that appellants, appellant representatives, and agency representatives perceive that the 

adjudication processes are fair, open, accessible, understandable, and easy to use, even if they do not 

agree with the final decision reached in their case (measure 1A-3). In surveying adjudication 

participants, we will seek to balance our interest in providing them with an opportunity for feedback 

with the possible burden that our asking for such feedback may place on them. It is especially 

important to consider the burden placed on appellant representatives and agency representatives 

who may appear before us multiple times per year. MSPB will restructure its customer service survey 

of adjudication participants in FY 2012. The FY 2013 target is to be determined based on FY 2012 

results. 

MSPB will continue to seek feedback from participants in our ADR programs (including settlement 

and mediation programs). The purpose of our ADR programs is to provide a range of helpful and 
43

appropriate options to appellants and agencies to resolve disputes. The focus is the degree to which 

participants perceive the processes to be helpful, valuable, and non-coercive, even if no agreement 

was reached in the process (measure 1A-6). Although the degree to which the processes lead to a 

successful resolution of the dispute is important, participants’ experiences while being involved in 

these processes are our primary interest. Therefore, MSPB will no longer track ADR success rates in 

its performance plans. MSPB will restructure its customer service survey of ADR participants in FY 

2012. The FY 2013 target is to be determined based on FY 2012 results. 

To support MSPB’s commitment to efficient case processing and improving customer service, 

MSPB will continue to track the proportion of initial decisions filed electronically (measure 1A-7) 

and the proportion of pleadings filed electronically (measure 1A-8). In FY 2011, the proportion of 

initial appeals filed electronically was 48 percent, and the proportion of pleadings filed electronically 

was 44 percent. These proportions have increased steadily over the last several years, and we are 

making efforts to strengthen these programs. In FY 2011, we expanded our Electronic Case File 

pilot program to include all regional offices and headquarters and, in FY 2012, we will begin a 

mandatory e-filing pilot program for agencies and representatives. As individual access to computers 

and the Internet increases, we anticipate that electronic filing will likely continue to increase. 

However, not every individual who may wish to file an appeal with MSPB will have access to or the 

desire to file electronically, so we expect to reach a natural plateau at some point beyond which we

would not expect to see an increase in the use of electronic filing. Recent results indicate that 

electronic filing does not yet seem to be approaching a plateau. Given these results, and our efforts 

to improve electronic processing, we will increase the targets for these measures in the next two 

years. The targets for electronic filing of initial appeals will be set at 44 percent or more in FY 2012 

and at 46 percent or more in FY 2013. The targets for electronic filing of pleadings will be set at 38 

percent or more in FY 2012 and at 40 percent or more in FY 2013.

Enforcement of MSPB decisions: MSPB will continue to measure average processing time for 

enforcement cases in FY 2012 (measure 1B-1). The enforcement process begins when the request 

for compliance is filed in a regional or field office. If the AJ finds that the parties to the case are not 

in compliance, then the case goes to headquarters. The processing time includes actions taken by 

MSPB staff to research the case, notify the alleged non-compliant party (sometimes more than 

once), as well as the time it takes both parties to submit relevant information regarding compliance. 

Of note, the issues presented for resolution in enforcement cases – including disputes over back pay, 

reconstruction of the hiring process, and whether employees’ new duties are substantially similar to 

their previous duties – appear to have become more complex over time. Accordingly, the amount of 

time required to obtain the necessary information from the involved parties to adequately address 

such issues has increased. In addition, because there are relatively few enforcement cases each year, 

only one or two very complex enforcement cases can substantially affect the average processing 

time. This is evidenced by the variability in processing time that MSPB has experienced over time. 

Unfortunately, the average processing time for enforcement cases increased in FY 2011. However, 

given the overall complexity of the enforcement process and past processing time results, MSPB will 

retain a target for average processing time for enforcement cases of 200 days or fewer for FY 2012 

and FY 2013.

Merit Systems Studies: Stakeholder perceptions that our published merit systems study reports 

are objective, timely, and well written are important indicators of the success of our merit systems 

studies function (measure 1C-1). In FY 2012, MSPB will establish a measurement process for this 
44

indicator and will set future targets as a part of its overall restructuring of the external customer 

service survey program. The FY 2013 target will be determined based on FY 2012 results. 

MSPB will also continue to measure the number and scope of merit systems studies completed each 

year (measure 1C-2). Depending on the breadth and depth of the particular topic of a study, the 

method of collecting data, the complexity of the data and data analyses, and the relative experience 

of the project manager and analysts involved in the study, it may take 18-30 months to complete a 

single study. In addition, there are other important aspects of the studies program and other MSPB 

functions related to the studies program that are performed by the studies staff. During MSPB’s 

recent strategic planning process, it was determined that placing greater focus and emphasis on 

specific activities and functions would allow MSPB to better achieve its Strategic Goals and carry 

out its statutory responsibilities as intended by the CSRA. These functions include reviewing and 

reporting on OPM significant actions (performance goal 1D), providing input on MSPB’s review of 

OPM rules and regulations (performance goal 1D), and developing and delivering targeted 

communication products and educational materials on merit systems, MSPs, and PPPs (under 

Strategic Goal 2). In addition, the office is involved in conducting program evaluations and ensuring 

the validity and reliability of performance data and data systems as required by GPRAMA. However, 

MSPB has not received the necessary increase in staff or resources to carry out these important 

additional activities. Therefore, MSPB must adjust the target for the number of merit systems studies 

reports until necessary resources become available. Given the aforementioned changes in focus and 

emphasis, the many factors that can impact the study process, past results, and variability in the 

number of reports completed each year, our targets for FY 2012 and FY 2013 are a range of three to 

five completed merit systems study reports each year. The previous measure of the studies program 

related to conducting periodic Merit Principles Surveys will no longer be used. Conducting surveys is 

a strategy used to accomplish our work, but is not a valuable measure in and of itself.

Review of OPM rules, regulations, and significant actions: MSPB intends to strengthen its 

statutory function to review and take action on OPM rules and regulations, and to review and report 

on OPM significant actions. MSPB may, on its own motion, or at the request of other parties, 

review and potentially overturn OPM regulations if such regulations, or the implementation of such 

regulations, would require an employee to commit one or more PPPs. MSPB is also responsible for 

annually reviewing and reporting on the significant actions of OPM and the degree to which they 

may affect adherence to MSPs and the avoidance of PPPs. An important measure of this function is 

the number and scope of impact of these reviews in terms of the percent of the workforce, agencies, 

and policy areas affected or covered by these reviews. In FY 2012, MSPB will conduct an afteraction review of MSPB’s actions related to at least one of the major changes in OPM regulations or 

rules in the last four years. In FY 2013, we will establish a regulations review and performance 

measurement process and set future targets (measure 1D-1). Similarly, in FY 2012, MSPB will 

conduct an after action review of at least one of OPM’s major significant actions in the last four 

years. In FY 2013, MSPB will establish an OPM significant action review and performance 

measurement process and set future targets (measure 1D-2).

Strategic Goal 2 

This Strategic Goal focuses on efforts to use information from our adjudication, enforcement, merit 

systems studies, and OPM review work to support merit, improve adherence to MSPs, and prevent 

PPPs in the future. This includes informing and/or encouraging policy-makers to take actions that 

improve merit; conducting outreach to improve adherence to MSPs and prevention of PPPs in the 

workplace; and providing educational standards, materials, and guidance to improve the 
45

understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs. Most of the measures we will use to measure these 

performance goals are new. In FY 2012, we will establish measurement processes and set future 

targets for these measures. The FY 2013 targets are TBD based on FY 2012 results. 

Inform, promote, and/or encourage actions by policy-makers: Measures of this performance 

goal include the number and scope of contacts made with Governmentwide policy-makers focused 

on supporting or improving merit systems laws, regulations, rules, Executive Orders, and other 

policies (measure 2A-1). Policy-makers include Congressional members and staff, the CHCO 

Council, OPM, and others involved in considering or setting Governmentwide or large scale policies 

related to merit systems, improving adherence to MSPs, or preventing PPPs. MSPB will also track 

the number of references to MSPB decisions, reports, newsletters, web content, or other materials in 

policy papers, legislation, professional literature, Executive Orders, or the media (measure 2A-2). 

This is similar to the merit systems studies measure on impact used in the past, but it is numeric 

rather than qualitative and includes references to other MSPB information. The third measure for 

this performance goal focuses on the number, type, and scope of MSPB products created and made 

available to inform policy-makers on improvements to merit systems policies, laws, and/or 

regulations (measure 2A-3). This measure recognizes that policy-makers may focus on specific 

issues, and that communication products are most effective when they meet the needs of various 

audiences or stakeholders.

Support stronger merit-based practices in the workplace: Measures of this performance goal 

include the number of views and/or accesses of MSPB precedential decisions, studies reports, 

newsletters, and other web-based materials meant to improve the practice of merit, adherence to 

MSPs, or prevention of PPPs in the workplace (measure 2B-1). In addition, we will measure the 

number and scope of MSPB contacts with practitioners and stakeholders focused on improving the 

practice of merit, improving adherence to MSPs, and preventing PPPs in the workplace (measure 

2B-2). 

Advance the understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs: There are two measures of this 

performance goal. The first measure is the number, scope, and type of educational materials, or 

guidance about the merit systems, MSPs, PPPs, MSPB decisions, the appeals process, studies, 

newsletters, etc., that are viewed or accessed from MSPB’s website (measure 2C-1). The second 

measure is the number and type of merit systems educational materials and guidance MSPB makes 

available (measure 2C-2).