§

Annual Performance Report

for 

FY 2021 

and

Annual Performance Plan

for

FY 2022 (Final) & FY 2023 (Proposed)

March 28, 2022
ii MSPB APR-APP for FY 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

This page intentionally left blank.
iii MSPB APR-APP for FY 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Table of Contents

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

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

Current Organization....................................................................................................................................2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Goal 2............................................................................................................................................17

Management Objectives.............................................................................................................................23

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish MSPB’s Objectives ........................................30

Strategic Goal 2............................................................................................................................................32

Management Objectives.........................................................................................................................33

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance...............................................34

Internal Management Challenges..............................................................................................................34

External Trends...........................................................................................................................................36

Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement ............................................................40

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2021.....................................................................................42

Appendix B: Information Required under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(i)(1) and (2) ................................48

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report...................................49

Appendix D: More Information about MSPB......................................................................... 51
iv MSPB APR-APP for FY 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

This page intentionally left blank.
v MSPB APR-APP for FY 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Foreword

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

Annual Performance Plan (APR-APP) for fiscal years (FYs) 2021-2023, which combines the final 

APR for FY 2021 with the APP for FY 2022 (Final) and FY 2023 (Proposed), as required by the 

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

information about cases involving whistleblowers pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection 

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

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

Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (Pub. L. 115-336), Appendix C contains our Modernization 

of Public-facing Digital Services Report. 

Prior to March 4, 2022, MSPB had been without a quorum of Board members for five years, from 

January 8, 2017 to March 3, 2022. It had not had any presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed 

Board members since March 1, 2019. The lack of quorum prevented MSPB from issuing decisions 

on petitions for review (PFRs) and other cases at headquarters (HQ), and from issuing reports of merit 

systems studies. Despite these restrictions, MSPB continued to carry out its functions to the maximum 

extent possible, including adjudication of initial appeals in its regional and field offices (RO/FOs). Details 

on how the lack of a quorum has affected our performance are contained in the body of this document. 

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

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

merit systems, Federal agencies, the workforce, and the public. It also provides information about

the merit system principles (MSPs) and prohibited personnel practices (PPPs). The APR-APP is 

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

FY 2021 to performance targets defined in May 2021, and includes prior year results for 

comparative purposes. It also contains: final goals, measures, and targets for FY 2022 and proposed 

goals, measures, and targets for FY 2023, along with explanatory information on changes; an overall 

summary of the external trends and internal management challenges that have affected or may affect 

MSPB’s performance; and information about performance measurement and program evaluation. 

The APR-APP has been prepared in accordance with GPRAMA, guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and other sources. Additional information about MSPB’s activities 

can be found in the Annual Report (AR) for FY 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1206. MSPB’s APRs, 

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

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

DeeAnn Batten, Ph.D.

Performance Improvement Officer (PIO)

Office of Policy and Evaluation

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20419

Toll Free: 1-800-209-8960

Fax: 202-653-7130

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

Follow us on Twitter @USMSPB.
vi MSPB APR-APP for FY 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

This page intentionally left blank.
1 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

APR-APP for FY 2021-2023

Introduction

A highly qualified, diverse Federal workforce managed under the merit system principles (MSPs), 

and in a manner free from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), is critical to ensuring Federal 

agency performance and service to the public. The MSPs are essential management practices that 

help ensure that the Federal Government is able to recruit, select, develop, maintain, and manage 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. MSPB’s

fundamental function is to ensure that the Federal workforce is managed in a manner consistent 

with the MSPs and protected from PPPs. 

This APR-APP aligns with the strategic and management objectives defined in MSPB’s Strategic 

Plan for FY 2022-2026. It also includes final FY 2021 performance results and performance targets 

for FY 2022 (final) and for FY 2023 (proposed). MSPB adjusted the FY 2022 targets from those 

contained in the FY 2022 APP published in May 2021 based on changes in external and internal 

factors. The goals and targets for FY 2022 and 2023 are in line with MSPB’s proposed budgets for 

those years.

1

See Comprehensive Performance Results and Plans. 

About MSPB

A Merit-Based U.S. Civil Service. Briefly reviewing the history of our Federal civil service is 

helpful in understanding the origin and purpose of MSPB. Until the early 1880s, the Federal civil 

service was a patronage or “spoils” system in which the president’s administration appointed Federal 

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

suitability and qualifications to perform particular Federal jobs.2 Over time, this practice contributed 

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

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

serve the American people. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

has not defined any unnecessary agency plans and reports as referenced in GPRAMA (Pub. L. 111-352 § 1125). 

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

2010, pages 109-110. 
2 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

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

capable and effective service to the American people.

During the following decades, it became clear that the CSC could not properly, adequately, and 

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

Concern over the inherent or perceived conflict of interest in the CSC’s role as both the rule-maker 

and adjudicator of those same rules was a principal motivating factor behind the passage of the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA).3 The CSRA replaced the CSC with three new agencies: MSPB 

as the successor to the Commission;

4

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as the president’s 

agent for Federal workforce policy and procedure; and the Federal Labor Relations Authority to 

oversee Federal labor-management relations. More information about MSPB’s role, functions and 

scope of responsibilities, organizational structure, and how it brings value to the merit systems, the 

Federal workforce, and the public is contained in Appendix D.

Current Organization

Prior to March 4, 2022, MSPB had been without a quorum of Board members for five years (from

January 8, 2017 through March 3, 2022), and without any presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed 

Board members since March 1, 2019. Since 2019, MSPB continued to operate in accordance with its 

continuity of operations plan (COOP). Under the COOP, MSPB’s General Counsel served as the 

agency’s Acting Chief Executive and Administrative Officer. The lack of quorum led to a backlog of 

PFRs and other cases at HQ awaiting Board decisions. As of the end of September 2021, MSPB had 

a total of 3,465 pending cases at HQ. The lack of quorum also prevented MSPB from releasing 

reports of merit systems studies, promulgating substantive regulations to accompany congressional 

changes in its jurisdiction or processes, and it affected the review of OPM significant actions. 

Nonetheless, administrative judges (AJs) in the RO/FOs continued to receive initial appeals, 

conduct hearings, and issue initial decisions. MSPB HQ continued to receive PFRs and to draft 

proposed PFR decisions for consideration by Board members upon their arrival. MSPB continued

to conduct research and drafted a new research agenda for review by the Board now that a quorum 

is restored. The agency’s executive, financial, and administrative operations continued to function. 

As a result, MSPB continued to perform its critical mission to the extent possible during this 

prolonged interval. 

President Trump’s nominations of Dennis D. Kirk as Board Chairman and B. Chad Bungard and 

Julia A. Clark as Board Members expired at the end of the 116th Congress. At the beginning of the 

117th Congress, President Trump nominated Mr. Kirk as the Board Member, but his nomination was 

withdrawn by President Biden on February 4, 2021. On June 24, 2021, President Biden nominated 

Cathy Ann Harris to be a Member and Chair of the MSPB and Raymond A. Limon to be a Member 

of the MSPB with the designation of Vice Chair. On September 13, President Biden nominated

Tristan Leavitt as the third Member of the MSPB. On September 22, the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a nomination hearing for the three nominees. 

On October 6, 2021, the nominees were reported favorably out of committee and the nominations 

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

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

nomination was reported favorably out of committee and placed on the Senate calendar. On 

March 1, 2022, the Senate confirmed the nominations of Mr. Limon and Mr. Leavitt, and on 

3 Ibid. page 113. 

4 Ibid. page 114. 
3 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

March 4, 2022, they were sworn in as Board Members. We hope the necessary action will be taken 

to confirm Ms. Harris in early calendar year 2022.

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

statutory and support functions. These are the Offices of Appeals Counsel, Clerk of the Board

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

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

Regional Operations (ORO). The EEO Director reports directly to the Chair and the directors of 

the other offices report to the Chair through the Executive Director. MSPB also has six ROs and 

two FOs located throughout the United States. These offices process initial appeals and report to 

the ORO Director. The agency is authorized up to 235 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to 

conduct and support its statutory duties. Other Federal agencies also perform many support 

functions for MSPB through interagency agreements. 

Summary of Changes in this APR-APP

This APR-APP makes clear that, until a new Board is confirmed, MSPB cannot define FY 2022 and 

FY 2023 targets for the performance goals (PGs) related to quality of initial appeals, PFR 

processing, compliance case processing, and requests to review OPM regulations. Strategic and 

management objectives and PGs for FY 2022 reflect changes in the MSPB Strategic Plan for 

FY 2022-2026. Final performance results for FY 2021, and the performance plans for FY 2022 

(final) and FY 2023 (proposed) are included. The Performance Framework and the Means and 

Strategies sections have been updated accordingly. The Comprehensive Results and Plans section 

primarily uses the FY 2021 strategic and management objectives and PGs, and it includes 

explanations for the FY 2022 changes and proposed targets for FY 2023. Some FY 2022 and many 

FY 2023 targets are to be determined (TBD) based on restoration of a quorum and results achieved 

in the prior FY. The external factors section updates information about the COVID-19 pandemic

and includes new EOs and recent court decisions. 

Linking this Plan to Other Agency Documents 

This APR-APP is based on MSPB’s Strategic Plan for FY 2022-2026. Individual performance plans 

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

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

accordance with the GPRAMA and OMB guidance. MSPB’s plans and reports are posted on MSPB’s 

website at www.mspb.gov. 
4 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

MSPB Performance Framework

Mission

Protect the merit system principles and promote an effective Federal workforce 

free of prohibited personnel practices.

Vision

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

providing excellent service to the American people.

Organizational Values

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

scientific research methods to conduct our studies and make practical recommendations 

for improvement; and develop and use appropriate processes to oversee the regulations 

and significant actions of OPM. We will interact with our customers and stakeholders in 

a professional, respectful, and courteous manner. We will strive to be a model meritbased organization by applying the lessons we learn in our work to the internal 

management of MSPB.

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

in considering the various perspectives and interests of stakeholders in our work and in 

our external and internal interactions with individuals and organizations. 

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

will issue timely reports on the findings and recommendations of our merit systems 

studies. We will respond promptly to inquiries from customers and stakeholders.

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

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

our decisions, merit systems studies, and other materials easy to understand, and widely 

available and accessible on our website. We will enhance the understanding of our 

processes and the impact of our products through outreach efforts. 
5 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Strategic Goals and Objectives

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

safeguarding the civil service from prohibited personnel practices.

Strategic Objectives:

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

adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. 

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

supported by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

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

fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions.

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

management issues. 

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

as appropriate.

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

merit systems, adherence to merit system principles, and prevention of prohibited 

personnel practices. 

Strategic Objectives:

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

the workplace through successful, targeted outreach and engagement.

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

public by developing and sharing informational and educational materials and guidance.

Management Objectives

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

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

support functions successfully.

M2: Modernize information technology (IT) to support agency mission and 

administrative functions. 
6 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Comprehensive Performance Results and Plans

This section is structured primarily on the PGs defined in FY 2021. Beginning in FY 2022, MSPB is 

changing several objectives, PGs, measures, and targets. New objective and performance goal 

statements, new measures, and new targets are included in each relevant section. These changes 

enhance the focus on reducing the backlog of cases at HQ while carrying out all other adjudication 

functions, and clarify or simplify the other goals and objectives. Some changes may be final at the 

beginning of FY 2022, some changes will be finalized over the course of FY 2022. MSPB’s quorum 

was restored in early March 2022. The Board is resuming operations related to issuing HQ decisions 

and other functions. We hope that the Senate will soon confirm Ms. Harris so the Board will have a 

full slate of Members. 

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

the civil service from prohibited personnel practices.

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

and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

Results indicate this objective was Partially Met. MSPB exceeded the target for average processing 

time for initial appeals and met the target for cases left unchanged by the court. MSPB also met the 

targets for conducting surveys of adjudication and ADR customers. However, no changes were 

made to the customer surveys to account for the new applications because the new core adjudication 

applications are not yet fully implemented. Because MSPB began FY 2021 without a quorum of 

Board members, targets were not set or results rated for quality of initial appeals (which is based on 

PFR decisions), and average PFR processing time. Even though MSPB did not have a quorum for 

the entirety of 2021, it continued to process cases at HQ and prepare proposed decisions in PFR 

and original jurisdiction cases for review by new Board members when they arrive. At the end of 

FY 2021, 3,465 PFR cases were pending at HQ. 

Beginning in FY 2022, MSPB will split the adjudication objective into two subobjectives, one to 

focus on adjudication of initial appeals and ADR conducted by RO/FOs and one to focus on 

adjudication of cases and ADR at HQ. The PGs for initial appeals include quality and timeliness of 

initial decisions (including addenda), and a new measure for the ADR function. The FY 2022 target 

for timeliness of initial appeals remains at 120 days or fewer. In FY 2022, appropriate goals and 

measures for initial appeals decision quality and ADR processing and programs will be determined 

by assessing these processes and available data. Reviewing and determining goals and measures for 

initial decision quality and ADR processes will involve new Board members, consideration of new 

rules, laws, and regulations that affect MSPB jurisdiction and case processing, and assessment of 

data obtained as MSPB begins to issue decisions at HQ (which will include remands and reversals of 

previously issued initial decisions). Previous PGs related to automated customer service surveys of 

participants in the initial appeals and ADR processes will be discontinued effective FY 2022. MSPB 

will continue to conduct adjudication customer surveys; however, pending implementation of our 

new adjudication system, MSPB will not include the surveys as PGs in the APP. 

The PGs for HQ case processing will include a measure of quality of PFR decisions, timeliness of 

PFR processing, and one or two new PGs specifically related to reducing the backlog of cases at 

HQ. The goals for backlog reduction are currently placeholder goals to be defined in FY 2022, along 

with a suitable measures, now that a quorum has been restored and the new Board Members can 

determine how to approach adjudicating the backlog. MSPB has long considered the proportion of 

cases left unchanged by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) as a surrogate or proxy 
7 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

measure for MSPB decision quality. In FY 2022, MSPB will continue to use the current measure but 

will consider the specific numeric calculation for this measure, and perhaps other aspects of HQ 

decision quality, to determine possible changes to this measure. Also in FY 2022, MSPB will 

consider input from the new Board, as well as the approach the new Board adopts to reduce the 

backlog of HQ cases, in order to define an appropriate target for timeliness of HQ case processing. 

The FY 2023 targets for all goals are TBD based on FY 2022 results. 

Linking FY 2021 and FY 2022 Adjudication PG Numbers: The order of detailed results and plans 

for the adjudication PGs in this section follows that for FY 2021, and involves eliminating some 

PGs and including placeholder PGs to be defined in FY 2022. Specific changes in wording and 

numbering for each PG and for each related performance measure are noted in the following 

sections. The following table of PG numbers for FY 2021 and FY 2022 is provided to help navigate 

adjudication results and plans for the adjudication objective. 

Performance Goal Topic FY 2021 PG

Number

FY 2022 PG

Number

Initial decision quality 1A-1 1A-RO-1

Participant perceptions of the initial appeals process 1A-3 Eliminated

Initial appeals timeliness 1A-4 1A-RO-2

New placeholder PG for ADR process New in FY 2022 1A-RO-3

Participant perceptions of the ADR process 1A-6 Eliminated

PFR decision quality 1A-2 1A-HQ-1

PFR timeliness 1A-5 1A-HQ-2

New placeholder PG to reduce HQ case backlog New in FY 2022 1A-HQ-3

New companion placeholder PG on backlog reduction (if needed) New in FY 2022 1A-HQ-4

Strategic Objective 1A: Beginning in FY 2022, this objective is restated as “Provide understandable, 

high-quality resolution of initial appeals in the RO/FOs, supported by fair and efficient adjudication 

and ADR processes” to focus on initial appeals case processing and ADR processes, and is

renumbered 1A-RO.

Performance Goal 1A-1: Maintain quality of initial decisions. Beginning in FY 2022, this 

PG reads “Ensure quality of initial decisions” and is renumbered as 1A-RO-1.

Measure: Percent of initial decisions that are reversed or remanded on PFR due to AJ error 

or oversight. A new measure will be defined in FY 2022.

Results Targets

FY 2015 2% FY 2021 No target set, no quorum.

FY 2016 5% FY 2022

No numeric target set. Assess processes 

and available data and determine an 

appropriate measure for initial 

decision quality.

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

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

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

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

FY 2021 No target set, not rated, no quorum.
8 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal 1A-3: Maintain participants’ positive perceptions of the 

adjudication process. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG and measure is eliminated.

Measure: Percent of adjudication participants surveyed who agree that MSPB adjudication 

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

Results Targets

FY 2015

Customer survey data collected from 

PFR customers in support of the PFR 

program evaluation. 

FY 2021

Continue automated customer service 

and customer satisfaction survey, 

consider results, and take appropriate 

action to address issues. Change 

surveys, as appropriate, after 

implementing new core 

business applications.

FY 2016

Collected customer feedback from the 

PFR participants. Customer surveys 

submitted for OMB Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) approval. 

Automated sampling and invitation 

process was developed.

FY 2022 Beginning in FY 2022, this PG is

eliminated.

FY 2017 Implemented automated survey process 

and began data collection. FY 2023 Not applicable.

FY 2018 Automated survey process ongoing. 

FY 2019 Surveys ongoing. 

FY 2020 Surveys ongoing. 

FY 2021

Surveys ongoing; no changes were 

made to the surveys because the new 

core adjudication applications are not 

yet implemented.

Performance Goal 1A-4: Maintain processing timeliness for initial appeals. Beginning in 

FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure processing timeliness for IDs (including addendum 

appeals)” and is renumbered PG 1A-RO-2. 

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

Results Targets

FY 2015 499 days* FY 2021 120 days or fewer.

FY 2016 99.5% of furloughs and 78% of nonfurlough workload completed. FY 2022 120 days or fewer.

FY 2017 See Interim Indicator below. FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

FY 2018 102 days

FY 2019 105 days 

FY 2020 102 days 

FY 2021 105 days 

* A weighted average including all initial appeals closed.

Interim Indicator for Initial Appeals Processing: 

1A-4a: Percent of initial decisions issued for nonfurlough initial appeals. In FY 2017, this indicator was 

redefined as the percent of cases closed that were filed prior to October 1, 2016. Discontinued in FY 2018.

FY 2015 70% (5,418/7,752) 

FY 2016 78% (5,886/7,669)

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

FY 2017 Result 98% (1,989/2,030)
9 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal 1A-RO-3: New PG for the ADR process TBD.

Measure: A new measure will be defined in FY 2022 to measure some aspect of the ADR process.

Results Targets

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022.

FY 2022

No numeric target set. Consider and 

determine new goal and measure for the 

ADR process.

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

Performance Goal 1A-6: Maintain participants’ positive perceptions of the ADR process. 

Beginning in FY 2022, this PG and measure is eliminated.

Measure: Percent of participants in the ADR programs, including initial appeals settlement and the 

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

and noncoercive, even if no agreement was reached.

Results Targets

FY 2015 Collected feedback from participants in 

the MAP. FY 2021

Continue automated customer service 

and customer satisfaction survey, 

consider results, and take appropriate 

action to address issues. Change 

surveys, as appropriate, after 

implementing new core 

business applications.

FY 2016

Collected customer feedback from 

MAP participants. Customer surveys 

submitted for OMB PRA approval. 

Automated sampling and invitation 

process was developed. 

FY 2022 Beginning in FY 2022, this PG will be

eliminated. 

FY 2017 Implemented automated survey process 

and began data collection. FY 2023 Not applicable.

FY 2018 Automated survey process ongoing. 

FY 2019 Surveys ongoing. 

FY 2020 Surveys ongoing. 

FY 2021

Surveys ongoing; no changes were 

made to the surveys because the new 

core adjudication applications are not 

yet implemented.
10 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

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

fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes. Beginning in FY 2022, this objective is restated as 

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

adjudication and ADR processes” and is renumbered 1A-HQ. 

Performance Goal 1A-2: Maintain quality of decisions reviewed by reviewing authority.

Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure quality of PFR decisions” and is 

renumbered as PG 1A-HQ-1.

Measure: Percent of MSPB decisions left unchanged (affirmed or dismissed) upon review by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). (MSPB will consider changes to this 

measure or its calculation in FY 2022.)

Results Targets

FY 2015 96% FY 2021 92% or more

FY 2016 94% FY 2022

92% or more using the current 

calculation, unless this measure or its 

calculation is changed in FY 2022.

FY 2017 94% FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

FY 2018 92%

FY 2019 86%

FY 2020 94% 

FY 2021 83% 

Performance Goal 1A-5: Maintain processing timeliness for PFRs. Beginning in FY 2022, 

this PG reads “Ensure processing timeliness for PFRs” and is renumbered as PG 1A-HQ-2.

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

Results Targets

FY 2015 190 days FY 2021 No target set, no quorum.

FY 2016 185 days FY 2022

No numeric target set. Consult new 

Board to determine appropriate measure 

and target.

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

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

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

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

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

Performance Goal 1A-HQ-3: Reduce the backlog of HQ cases. A new PG beginning in 

FY 2022 to focus on reducing the backlog of HQ cases.

Measure: A new measure to be defined to track reduction of the case backlog at HQ.

Results Targets

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022.

FY 2022

No numeric target set. Define PG and 

measure depending on new Board’s 

approach to the backlog.

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.
11 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal 1A-HQ-4: Reduce the backlog of HQ cases. An additional new PG 

beginning in FY 2022 to focus on reducing the backlog of HQ cases (if needed).

Measure: A new companion measure to be defined to track reduction of the case backlog at HQ 

(if needed).

Results Targets

FY 2021 New PG and measure in FY 2022.

FY 2022

No numeric target set. Define PG and 

measure depending on new Board’s 

approach to the backlog (if needed).

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

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

This objective was Not Rated. No FY 2021 target was set for this goal because MSPB began the 

year without a quorum of Board members. While MSPB processed compliance cases at HQ and in 

the RO/FOs, the lack of quorum prevented the agency from releasing any HQ decisions. Thus, 

MSPB did not rate this objective and goal. However, in FY 2021 the RO/FOs issued 106

compliance decisions with an average processing time of 93 days. These cases are included in the 

computation for total average case processing timeliness for all initial appeals and addenda in the 

RO/FOs (see PG 1A-4).

Beginning in FY 2022, MSPB will split the compliance case processing timeliness performance goal 

into two PGs, one each for the RO/FOs and for HQ, respectively. The FY 2022 target for 

processing compliance in the RO/FOs is set at 120 days or fewer, identical to the timeliness target 

for processing initial appeals. Processing compliance cases at HQ is a more complicated endeavor

that routinely involves extensive interaction with agencies. In FY 2022, MSPB will assess compliance 

case processing at HQ and determine an appropriate measure for this PG. The FY 2023 targets for 

both PGs are TBD based on FY 2022 results. 

Performance Goal 1B-1: Maintain timeliness of processing compliance/enforcement cases.

Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure processing timeliness of compliance cases in 

the RO/FOs.”

Measure: Weighted average processing time for all enforcement cases. Beginning in FY 2022, this 

measure will be the “Average processing time for compliance case addenda in the RO/FOs” to 

focus only on cases closed in the RO/FOs. (The prior year results have been updated to reflect only 

cases from the RO/FOs.)

Results Targets

FY 2015 126 days* FY 2021 No target set; new measure in FY 2022.

FY 2016 150 days* FY 2022 120 days or fewer. 

FY 2017 122 days* FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

FY 2018 95 days

FY 2019 104 days

FY 2020 94 days

FY 2021 93 days 

* The results for FY 2015-2017 were affected by the processing of furlough cases. See PG 1A-4 (on the 

timeliness of initial appeals) above.
12 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal 1B-1: Maintain timeliness of processing compliance/enforcement cases. 

Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure processing timeliness of compliance cases at 

HQ” and is renumbered 1B-2. 

Measure: Weighted average processing time for all enforcement cases. Beginning in FY 2022, a new 

measure will be defined to focus only on compliance cases closed at HQ. 

Results Targets

FY 2015 161 days* FY 2021 No target set, no quorum.

FY 2016 159 days* FY 2022

No numeric target set. Assess 

compliance case processing at HQ and 

determine appropriate measure for 

this PG.

FY 2017 No target set, not rated, no quorum. FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

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

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

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

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

 

* This is a weighted average of cases closed in the regional and field offices and cases closed at HQ.

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

human capital management issues. 

Results indicate this objective was Exceeded. MSPB achieved its targets for newsletters and other 

articles by publishing three Issues of Merit (IoM) newsletter editions covering seven of the nine MSPs

and three PPPs. Newsletter article topics included recruiting and hiring (job fit, direct hire, and the 

new General Services Administration dashboard); disability retirement; choosing an online training 

program; performance management; pay equity; building supportive work environments; the Senior 

Executive Service (SES); and reentry and post-pandemic telework. MSPB exceeded its target for 

preparing for publication of study documents by publishing five research briefs: the importance of 

job fit for agencies and employees; direct hire authority; determining acceptable level of competence; 

agency leader responsibilities for PPPs; and confidence in ability to perform. MSPB exceeded its 

target for conducting surveys by successfully completing the 2021 Merit Principles Survey (MPS), 

and fielding two surveys to gather input on strategic planning from external stakeholders. This year 

the MPS went to more agencies than either of the two previous MPSs and required less than half the 

time from approval of final survey content to survey launch than the previous MPS. The MPS data 

collected in 2021 will support at least three research projects. As of the end of FY 2021, MPS data 

were being prepared for public release. (Note, 2021 MPS data have since been published on MSPB’s 

website at https://www.mspb.gov/foia/SurveyData.htm.)

The FY 2022 and FY 2023 target for the IoM newsletter is to publish three newsletter editions each 

year. The target for number of studies reports, briefs, or other documents is to publish two

documents in FY 2022. The FY 2022 target for surveys is to design or implement a focused 

interagency studies survey. The FY 2023 targets for publishing study reports or briefs and conducting 

studies surveys is TBD based on FY 2022 results.
13 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal 1C-1: Maintain the number and scope of Issues of Merit (IoM) newsletter 

editions or other articles. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Publish Issues of Merit 

(IoM) newsletter or other articles.”

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

Results Targets

FY 2015 Published 3 IoM newsletter editions and 

4 online articles (all MSPs and 8 PPPs). FY 2021 Publish 3 IoM editions.

FY 2016 Published 3 IoM editions and 2 online

articles (all MSPs and PPPs).

FY 2022 Publish 3 IoM editions.

FY 2017

Published 3 IoM editions and 2 online 

articles, entitled Addressing Misconduct in 

the Federal Civil Service: Management 

Perspectives and MSPs: Keys to Managing the 

Federal Workforce (all MSPs & PPPs).

FY 2023 Publish 3 IoM editions.

FY 2018

Published 3 IoM editions and 4 articles 

or briefs, entitled Building Blocks for 

Effective Performance Management, The Role 

of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness 

in Employee Performance Behaviors, Update on 

Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace, 

and Improving Federal Hiring Through Better 

Assessment (all MSPs and 3 PPPs).

FY 2019

Published 3 IoM newsletter editions and 

4 research briefs, including Improving 

Federal Leadership Through Better 

Probationary Practices, The Perceived Incidence 

of Prohibited Personnel Practices, Remedying 

Unacceptable Employee Performance in the 

Federal Civil Service, and Managing 

Employees to Perform Emotionally Laborious 

Work (8 MSPs and 3 PPPs).

FY 2020 Published 3 IoM newsletter editions

covering 8 of 9 MSPs.

FY 2021 Published 3 IoM newsletter editions 

covering 7 MSPs, 3 PPPs. 

Performance Goal 1C-2: Maintain the number and scope of MSPB study reports, briefs, or 

other documents. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Publish MSPB study reports, 

briefs, or other documents.”

Measure: Number and scope (percent of the workforce, agencies, or policy areas impacted) of 

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

Results Targets

FY 2015 4 reports published (7 MSPs, 9 PPPs). FY 2021 Prepare for publication of 3 or more 

study documents.

FY 2016 3 reports published (all MSPs). FY 2022 Publish 2 or more study documents. 

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

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

FY 2019

No target set, not rated, no quorum.

Took significant steps to prepare a new 

merit system studies research agenda 

for review/approval by the new Chair. 
14 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2020

Published research brief The State of 

Federal HR Workforce: Changes and 

Challenges. Prepared for publication and 

awaiting approval by new Board:

MSPB Research Agenda for Merit Systems 

Studies, Sexual Harassment in the Federal 

Workplace: Understanding and Addressing 

the Problem, and The Importance of Job Fit 

for Federal Agencies and Employees.

FY 2021

Published 5 research briefs including:

The Importance of Job Fit for Agencies and 

Employees, Direct-Hire Authority Under 5 

U.S.C. § 3304: Usage and Outcomes,

Determining Acceptable Level of Competence 

for Step Increases, Agency Leader 

Responsibilities Related to Prohibited 

Personnel Practices, and Confidence in 

Ability to Perform Successfully.

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

health of the Federal merit systems.

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

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

Results Targets

FY 2015

Content for the next MPS to support 

the new FY 2015-2018 research agenda 

was developed, and a survey vendor 

was selected to program and administer 

the next MPS in early 2016. A Request 

for Quote for MSPB’s survey platform 

was issued by Department of Interior’s

(DOI’s) National Business Center; 

procurement of survey platform was 

put on hold to accomplish key milestones for the MPS, and as a result of 

the IT outage and changing Federal IT 

requirements.

FY 2021 Implement Governmentwide survey in 

2

nd quarter FY 2021.

FY 2016

Successfully administered 2016 MPS to 

approximately 120,000 Federal 

employees from 24 Federal agencies. 

The survey was fully compliant with 

Federal IT and security requirements 

and covered topics such as PPPs, 

dealing with poor performers, sexual 

and other workplace harassment, and 

employee engagement.

FY 2022 Design or implement a focused 

interagency studies survey.

FY 2017

Analyzed MPS data and prepared study 

reports on selected topics, conducted 

after-action review of the survey 

process, prepared data for the National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

proactively posted MPS data on our 

website. Began working with OPM to 

renew the memorandum of 

understanding for use of Enterprise 

Human Resource Integration 

(EHRI) data.

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.
15 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2018

Continued to analyze MPS 2016 data 

and draft reports and other documents. 

The next MPS will include content 

from a new research agenda (awaiting 

input from a new Chair) and a secure 

web-based survey capability. Began 

defining requirements for a new survey 

capability. MSPB has obtained EHRI 

data from OPM for FY 2016 and 2017, 

and is negotiating with OPM for 

continued access to EHRI data.

FY 2019

Procured a new web-based, Federal 

Risk and Authorization Management 

Program (FedRAMP) certified survey 

application. Survey data is a critical 

source of information for topics on the 

new research agenda. Two 

interrogatories were sent to agencies 

for responses. 

FY 2020

Content of next Governmentwide MPS

nearly completed. After two extensions

of OPM’s Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey (FEVS), the MPS is tentatively 

scheduled to be administered in the 2nd

quarter of FY 2021. 

FY 2021

Successfully administered the 2021 

MPS to more agencies than the 2010 

and 2016 MPSs and in less than half the 

time to go from approval of final 

survey content to survey launch than in 

2016. 2021 MPS data will support at 

least three research projects and data 

were being prepared for public release.

In early FY 2021. Also fielded two 

surveys to gather input on strategic 

planning from external stakeholders. 

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

Office of Personnel Management, as appropriate. 

Results indicate this objective was Partially Met. Due to the lack of quorum, MSPB did not set 

targets for or rate the PG involving review of OPM regulations. MSPB achieved its target for 

reviewing OPM significant actions by publishing in the Annual Report for FY 2020 a review of 

OPM significant actions such as the COVID-19 pandemic, improving applicant assessment, human 

capital (HC) reviews, and guidance on the appointment of political appointees into the career service 

during the election period. 

In FY 2022, MSPB will not set a target for review of OPM regulations, but MSPB will continue to 

publish a review of OPM significant actions in the MSPB Annual Report for FY 2021. In FY 2022, 

MSPB will also reassess how to measure the functions involving review of OPM rules, regulations, 

and significant actions with input from new Board members. The FY 2023 targets for these 

functions are TBD based on FY 2022 results.
16 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal 1D-1: Maintain program for review of OPM regulations. Beginning in 

FY 2022, this PG reads “Review OPM Regulations.”

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

of decisions issued involving OPM rules and regulations (or implementation of the same). (MSPB 

may define a new measure in FY 2022.)

Results Targets

FY 2015 One decision issued in response to a 

request for OPM regulation review. FY 2021 No target set, no quorum.

FY 2016 Nine decisions issued in response to 

requests for OPM regulation review. FY 2022

No target set; reassess how to measure 

this statutory function with input 

from new Board members.

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

FY 2018 Not rated, no quorum.

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

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

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

Performance Goal 1D-2: Maintain program for reviewing and reporting on OPM

significant actions. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Review and report on OPM 

significant actions.”

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

of OPM significant actions that are reviewed and reported. (MSPB may define a new measure in 

FY 2022.)

Results Targets

FY 2015

Published MSPB’s FY 2014 AR

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant actions in FY 2014 

included final rules implementing the 

Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 

and implementing phased retirement, 

the Governmentwide strategy on 

gender pay equity, and the 

Governmentwide Veterans 

Recruitment and Employment 

Strategic Plan. 

FY 2021

Maintain scope of review; publish 

review of OPM significant actions for 

previous year in MSPB AR.

FY 2016

Published MSPB’s FY 2015 AR

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant actions in FY 2015 

included SES reform and 

modernization, the recruitment, 

engagement, diversity, and inclusion 

initiative, and Federal supervisory and 

managerial framework and guidance. 

FY 2022

Publish review of OPM significant 

actions in the FY 2021 AR; reassess 

how to measure this statutory function 

with input from new Board members.

FY 2017

Published MSPB’s FY 2016 AR

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant actions in FY 2016

included evolution of OPM structure 

and finances, guidance on placement of 

political appointees in the career service 

during the 2016 presidential transition, 

strengthening the SES, and closing 

mission-critical skills gaps. 

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.
17 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2018

Published MSPB’s FY 2017 AR

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant FY 2017 actions

included the final rule regarding the 

Annual Employee Survey (AES) 

requirement and the 2017 FEVS, 

reforming the Federal Government and 

reshaping the Federal civilian 

workforce, framework for continuing 

development of Federal senior 

executives, and Governmentwide 

survey of Federal work-life programs. 

FY 2019

Published MSPB’s FY 2018 AR

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant FY 2018 actions 

included a review of themes of previous 

reviews including OPM’s purpose, 

funding, focus, and activities. 

FY 2020

Published MSPB’s FY 2019 AR 

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant FY 2019 actions 

included agency HC programs, hiring, 

workforce shaping, work-life programs, 

and employee performance 

management and rewards.

FY 2021

Published MSPB’s FY 2020 AR 

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant FY 2020 actions

were related to the COVID-19

pandemic, improving applicant 

assessment, HC reviews, and guidance 

on the appointment of political 

appointees into the career service 

during the election period. 

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

systems, adherence to merit system principles, and prevention of prohibited personnel practices.

Strategic Objective 2A: MSPB’s work is referenced by a variety of policy-related, educational, 

professional, or media sources. Beginning in FY 2022, this objective is combined with objective 2C. 

(See changes described below to FY 2021 objective 2C.)

Results indicate this objective was NOT MET. MSPB cases, studies, reports, newsletter articles, and 

other products were cited over 500 times in 92 different sources or outlets, which was less than 90% 

of the number of sources in FY 2020. Sources included trade publications on Federal management 

and legal issues, wire services, major daily newspapers, congressional sources, and a variety of 

websites and blogs. There were several notable references to MSPB’s studies work in FY 2021, 

including citations in: OPM’s final regulations on Probation, Performance-Based Reduction in 

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

Government Operations; the National Academy of Public Administration’s (NAPA) report on the 

review of OPM; Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on sexual harassment, employee 

engagement, and gender pay differences; and in a letter from the House Committee of Oversight 

and Reform to President Biden calling for nominations of MSPB Board members. 
18 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Beginning in FY 2022, this PG will be combined with PG 2C, placed under new objective 2B, and 

renumbered 2B-2. In FY 2022, MSPB will report the scope of references to our work and reassess 

how to measure this function with input from new Board members. The FY 2023 target is TBD 

based on FY 2022 results.

Performance Goal 2A-1: Maintain scope of references to MSPB work and products.

Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Track the scope of references to MSPB’s work and 

work products” and is renumbered as 2B-2.

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

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

professional literature, EOs, the media, or other sources. (MSPB may define a new measure for 

this PG in FY 2022.)

Results Targets

FY 2015

MSPB’s work was cited in at least 115 

different sources. MSPB work was cited 

in GAO reports on engagement and on 

using probationary periods to manage 

poor performers. The MSPB report on 

due process was cited in congressional 

testimony and in Congressman Mark 

Takano’s blog on pending legislation on 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Accountability Act of 2015. OPM cited 

MSPB engagement reports in a white 

paper on engaging the Federal workforce.

FY 2021 Maintain scope of references.

FY 2016

MSPB’s work was cited over 680 times in 

over 135 different sources. MSPB studies 

were cited in the August 2016 GAO 

report on OPM oversight of Federal 

hiring authorities, an International 

Personnel Management Association

News article, in a textbook on Federal 

Human Resources (HR), and in 

congressional discussions of veterans’ 

hiring, addressing employee misconduct, 

and preventing discrimination on the 

basis of sexual orientation.

FY 2022

Report scope of references; reassess 

how to measure this function with 

input from new Board members.

FY 2017

MSPB’s work was cited over 600 times in 

150 different sources. Several MSPB 

study reports were cited in the OMB 

Memorandum M-17-22 on Reforming the 

Federal Government, and in testimony at

a Senate hearing on empowering Federal 

managers. MSPB’s report on veterans 

hiring was cited in a report by the 

Congressional Research Service (CRS), 

and reports on engagement and on SES

training were cited in a new Federal 

management handbook published by the 

American Society for Personnel 

Administration. The 2017 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

provision to repeal the 180-day waiver for 

hiring people with previous military 

experience used MSPB’s veterans’ 

hiring report.

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.
19 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2018

MSPB’s work was cited 610 times in 136

different sources. Sources of particular 

import include two GAO reports; OPM’s 

unlocktalent.gov website; posts and 

letters by selected senators and 

representatives; the National Academy of 

Science, Engineering, and Medicine;

NAPA; the American Psychological 

Association; and a book on health 

care management.

FY 2019

MSPB’s work was cited 714 times in 129

different sources. Notable citations 

include a letter from the House VA 

Committee to the Secretary of the VA; a

CRS Report entitled Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB): A Legal Overview; and, 

Report: Symposium on the Federal Workforce 

for the 21st Century by the 

MITRE Corporation.

FY 2020

MSPB’s work was cited 453 times in 119

sources. Notable citations for 

policymakers include references to 

MSPB’s studies on sexual harassment in 

GAO’s report and testimony about sexual 

harassment at VA; a bipartisan, bicameral 

congressional letter to VA about sexual 

harassment; references to sexual 

harassment studies and case law in a 

briefing report by the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights; and an MSPB studies 

report on Adverse Actions cited in the 

CAFC decision in Sayers v. VA. 

FY 2021

MSPB’s work was cited 520 times in 92

sources. Notable citations include MSPB 

studies work cited in: OPM’s final 

regulations on Probation, PerformanceBased Reduction in Grade, and Removal 

Actions; testimony by Anne Joseph 

O’Connell to the House Subcommittee 

on Government Operations; NAPA’s

report on the review of OPM; GAO 

reports on sexual harassment, employee 

engagement, and gender pay differences;

and in a letter from the House 

Committee of Oversight and Reform to 

President Biden calling for nominations

of MSPB Board members. 

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

prevention of PPPs in the workplace through successful outreach. Beginning in FY 2022 this 

objective reads “Support and improve the practice of merit, adherence to MSPs, and prevention 

of PPPs in the workplace through successful, targeted outreach and engagement” and is 

renumbered as 2A.

Results indicate this objective was Exceeded. MSPB conducted 138 outreach events, over twice the 

target (60). The COVID-19 pandemic and the response to it negatively affected the number of events

in FY 2020 and resulted in a very conservative target for FY 2021. The number of events in FY 2021 
20 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

was similar to the average of outreach events conducted in FY 2015-2019. FY 2021 outreach event 

topics included MSPB adjudication processes and legal precedent, Federal employment law, merit 

systems studies research, and general merit systems issues. Audiences were varied and included 

Federal employment law attorneys, HR and EEO professionals, academic and Federal researchers, 

legal organizations, Federal executive branch departments and agencies, employee and affinity 

groups, academic institutions, and the merit protection commissioner from Australia. Despite the 

ongoing health crisis, MSPB staff presented virtually at the Federal Dispute Resolution conference, 

Federal Circuit Bar Association events, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law’s annual Federal Sector 

Labor Relations and Labor Law Conference. Notably, MSPB was consulted by OMB officials about 

hiring assessments using subject matter experts and structured interviews. 

Beginning in FY 2022, this objective will be renumbered 2A, and the PG renumbered 2A-1. In 

FY 2022, MSPB plans to conduct 90 outreach events. Consistent with improving equity, we plan to

ensure that adjudication information is presented to audiences representing employees/appellants 

and agencies more equally, as well as others we serve. MSPB also will assess past outreach events

and the outreach process and determine how to target events to key audiences and how to measure 

outreach success. The FY 2023 target is TBD based on FY 2022 results.

Performance Goal 2B-1: Maintain the number and scope of outreach contacts. Beginning

in FY 2022, this PG reads “Conduct effective outreach and engagement” and is

renumbered 2A-1.

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

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

PPPs in the workplace. (MSPB may define a new measure for this PG in FY 2022.)

Results Targets

FY 2015

Conducted 144 outreach events on 

legal, studies, merit/MSPs/PPPs, 

administrative, and other issues. 

FY 2021 Conduct 60 or more outreach events.

FY 2016

Conducted over 115 outreach events on 

legal, studies, merit/MSPs/PPPs, 

administrative, and other issues. 

Updated the outreach portion of the 

new office calendar.

FY 2022

Conduct 90 or more outreach events, 

improve the audience balance in events; 

assess past outreach events and the 

outreach process and determine how to 

target events to key audiences and how 

to measure outreach success.

FY 2017

Conducted 138 outreach events and

implemented the new outreach 

calendar, which improves the collection 

of outreach data including type of 

audience feedback collected at events. 

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

FY 2018

Conducted 134 outreach events.

Consideration of methods to collect 

customer feedback on events to

continue in FY 2019.

FY 2019

Conducted over 130 outreach events; 

given the low rate of events early in the 

FY, we decided that improvements in 

collection of customer feedback at 

outreach events will be reconsidered in 

the future in conjunction with agency 

priorities and available resources.

FY 2020 Conducted 76 outreach events.

FY 2021 Conducted 138 outreach events.
21 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Strategic Objective 2C: Advance the understanding of merit, the MSPs, and the PPPs by 

developing and sharing informational and educational materials and guidance. Beginning 

in FY 2022, this objective reads “Advance the understanding of merit, the MSPs, and the 

PPPs for stakeholders and the public by developing and sharing informational and 

educational materials and guidance,” is combined with objective 2A and renumbered as 2B.

Results indicate this objective was Exceeded. MSPB exceeded the target for the number and scope 

of available informational and educational materials and guidance made available on our website, by 

posting over 25 documents in 12 categories. These documents included: five research briefs; three 

IoM editions, five agency documents; 2020 AES/FEVS results; two Federal Register notices, eight 

press releases, three Privacy Impact Assessments, two No FEAR Act updates, monthly reports on 

pending PFR data, and MSPB case reports. 

Beginning in FY 2022, this objective will focus on developing and sharing informational and 

educational materials and will include PGs related to making material available (previous PG 2C-1) 

and references to MSPB’s work (see previous PG 2A-1 above). In FY 2022, MSPB will continue to 

post or distribute eight new or updated informational or educational products. MSPB will also 

review and assess the scope and type of materials and guidance we want to make available and 

determine how to measure and establish appropriate targets for this PG. The FY 2023 target is TBD 

based on FY 2022 results. 

Performance Goal 2C-1: Maintain number and scope of available informational and 

educational materials and guidance. Beginning in FY 2022 this PG reads “Develop and 

share informational and educational materials and guidance about merit, the MSPs, and the 

PPPs” and is renumbered as 2B-1.

Measure: Number of new or updated informational or educational documents made available 

electronically or on MSPB’s website. (MSPB may define a new measure for this PG in FY 2022.)

Results Targets

FY 2015

Posted three Research Highlights for merit 

systems study reports; regulations governing 

MSPB’s jurisdiction; Chairman Grundmann’s 

testimony on proposed VA legislation (S. 1082, 

S. 1117, and S. 1856); and the FY 2014 AR. 

Updated the pro bono page, and the appellant 

Questions & Answers on review of Board 

decisions by the CAFC. Posted a link to the 

Guide on LGBT Discrimination Protections for 

Federal Workers.

FY 2021

Post or distribute electronically 

eight new or updated 

informational or 

educational products.

FY 2016

Posted Research Highlight for reports on SES 

Training, Nepotism, and MSPs: Guiding the Fair 

and Effective Federal Management; two Federal 

News Radio interviews on studies reports; 

Chairman Grundmann’s record testimony from 

MSPB’s December 2016 House reauthorization 

hearing; her radio interview on VA SES 

appeals; the interim final rule on discovery in 

compliance proceedings; an updated guide to 

MSPs; and Organizational Functions and

Delegations of Authority on the e-FOIA 

(Freedom of Information Act) Reading 

Room page. 

FY 2022

Post or distribute electronically 

eight new or updated 

informational or educational 

products; review and assess the 

scope and type materials and 

guidance and determine how to 

measure and establish appropriate 

targets for this PG.
22 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2017

Published interactive versions of the Adverse 

Action report and MSPs: Use in Guiding Fair 

and Effective Management of the Workforce; two 

external reviews of MSPB’s IT systems; an 

annotated illustration of current avenues of 

review or appeal for a Federal adverse action;

designation of the new Vice Chairman Mark 

A. Robbins; guidance on lack of quorum; and 

the 2016 MPS data. Updated/ reorganized 

the e-FOIA Reading Room web page and 

created a new Privacy Act Program webpage.

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

FY 2018

Posted four articles or briefs, three IoM

newsletter editions; and one radio and one

video interview. Added links to Board 

member nominations, updated Acting 

Chairman Robbins’s biography, and added 

pages for recent Board members and their 

lengths of service. Updated information for 

appellants seeking judicial review of 

whistleblower claims, VA appeals under 

38 U.S.C. § 714, PFR withdrawal policy, lack 

of quorum frequently asked questions 

(FAQs), Information Quality Guidelines, and

2017 FOIA logs.

FY 2019

Posted three IoM editions and four research 

briefs; three Federal Register notices and five 

press releases; the FY 2018 AR; other agency 

reports, plans, and budget documents; the 

2018 FEVS results; updated FAQs on MSPB 

functions given the lack of Board members; 

updated history of Board member service; 

and changes to the AJ Handbook.

FY 2020

Created a COVID-19 webpage, and guidance 

pursuant to EO 13891 and OMB 

Memorandum M-20-02. Published our Data 

Governance Body’s charter in accord with the 

Federal Data Strategy (FDS). Published a new 

merit systems studies fact sheet, a research 

brief entitled The State of Federal HR Workforce: 

Changes and Challenges, and 3 IoM newsletter 

editions. Updated the accessibility and PPP 

webpages. Published policy for prohibited 

conduct and the Zoom for Government 

privacy act statement and rules of behavior 

for external users. Published the MSPB 

Strategic Plan for FY 2020-2024, APR-APP

for FY 2019-2021, Congressional Budget 

Justification (CBJ) for FY 2021, FY 2019 AR,

FY 2019 Annual Financial Report (AFR), and 

an information sheet on reductions in force 

(RIFs). Posted updated figures on PFR 

processing, FAIR Act inventory, 2019 

AES/FEVS results, and No FEAR Act data.
23 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2021

Posted over 20 documents in 12 categories 

including: five research briefs; three IoM

editions; five agency documents (APR-APP, 

AFR, APR, CBJ, and AR); 2020 AES/FEVS 

results; two Federal Register notices; eight 

press releases; three Privacy Impact 

Assessments; two No FEAR Act updates;

monthly reports on pending cases at HQ; and 

MSPB case reports.

Management Objectives

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

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

functions successfully. Beginning in FY 2022, this objective reads “Lead, manage, and develop 

employees to ensure a highly qualified, diverse, inclusive, and engaged workforce with the 

competencies to perform MSPB’s mission and support functions successfully. 

Results indicate this objective was Exceeded. Internal Survey (IS) results indicate that target for 

employees competencies was met, and the targets for diversity/inclusion and engagement were 

exceeded. All concepts were measured using the MSPB IS because the 2021 FEVS was delayed to 

November 2021. 

Beginning in FY 2022, the PG for diversity/inclusion will be split into two, one each for diversity and 

inclusion, respectively. This will simplify and clarify assessing and reporting indicators of these two 

important values. In FY 2022, MSPB may return to using the OPM FEVS to measure diversity and 

engagement, assuming its timing will ensure data are available for reporting. Otherwise, data for these 

PGs will be obtained from the IS. The FY 2022 and FY 2023 targets for competencies, diversity, 

inclusion, and employee engagement are defined as an average positive response to relevant questions 

of 70 percent or higher. 

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

perform its mission.

Measure: Percent of employees who report on the FEVS (or IS) that they and others in the 

workforce have the appropriate competencies needed to perform MSPB’s mission.

Results Targets

FY 2015 FEVS Competency average = 79%. FY 2021 Competency average = 70% or higher. 

FY 2016 FEVS Competency average = 68%. FY 2022 Competency average = 70% or higher.

FY 2017 FEVS Competency average = 71%. FY 2023 Competency average = 70% or higher.

FY 2018 FEVS Competency average = 71%.

FY 2019 FEVS Competency average = 75%.

FY 2020 Competency average = 80% (derived 

from the IS due to the FEVS delay).

FY 2021 Competency average = 73% (derived 

from the IS due to the FEVS delay).
24 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal M1-2: Maintain positive perceptions of diversity and inclusion by MSPB 

employees. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure positive perceptions of workforce 

diversity by MSPB employees.”

Measure: Average percent agreement on FEVS (or IS) diversity questions. Beginning in FY 2022, 

this measure will focus only on diversity.

Results Targets

FY 2015 FEVS Diversity average = 71%. FY 2021 Diversity average = 70% or higher.

FY 2016 FEVS Diversity average = 67%. FY 2022 Diversity average = 70% or higher.

FY 2017 FEVS Diversity average = 66%. FY 2023 Diversity average = 70% or higher.

FY 2018 FEVS Diversity average = 61%.

FY 2019 FEVS Diversity average = 72%.

FY 2020 Diversity average = 75% (derived from 

the IS due to the FEVS delay).

FY 2021 Diversity average = 76% (derived from 

the IS due to the FEVS delay).

Performance Goal M1-3: Maintain positive perceptions of diversity and inclusion by MSPB 

employees. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure positive perceptions of workplace 

inclusion by MSPB employees” and is numbered M1-3.

Measure: Average percent agreement on IS workplace inclusion questions. Beginning in FY 2022, 

this measure will focus only on inclusion.

Results Targets

FY 2015 IS Inclusion average = 77%. FY 2021 Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

FY 2016 IS Inclusion average = 78%. FY 2022 Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

FY 2017 IS Inclusion average = 76%. FY 2023 Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

FY 2018 IS Inclusion average = 81%.

FY 2019 IS Inclusion average = 84%.

FY 2020 IS Inclusion average = 83%.

FY 2021 IS Inclusion average = 86%.

Performance Goal M1-4: Strengthen and maintain employee engagement and address 

engagement issues identified in the FEVS. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure 

positive employee engagement” and as renumbered as M1-4.

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

Results Targets

FY 2015 FEVS Engagement Index = 74%. FY 2021 Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

FY 2016 FEVS Engagement Index = 69%. FY 2022 Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

FY 2017 FEVS Engagement Index = 70%. FY 2022 Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

FY 2018 FEVS Engagement Index = 66%.

FY 2019 FEVS Engagement Index = 72%.
25 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2020 FEVS Engagement Index = 80%.

FY 2021 Engagement Index = 82% (derived 

from the IS due to the FEVS delay).

Management Objective M2: Develop budgets and manage financial resources to ensure necessary 

resources now and in the future. (This PG was discontinued in mid-FY 2021.)

This objective was Not Rated. This objective was discontinued in mid-FY 2021 as not being 

needed. This objective and PG will not be included in the APP for FY 2022-2023. If it is determined 

that there is a need to focus on a particular budgetary, financial, or administrative function in the 

future, then a new objective and PG may be added at that time. 

Performance Goal M2-1: Develop fully-justified budgets and ensure resource

accountability. This PG and measure was discontinued in mid-FY 2021 as not needed.

Measure (for years prior to FY 2021): Percent of funded positions vacant at the end of each 

month, averaged over the year.

Results Targets

FY 2015 4% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months. FY 2021 Consider new goal and measure when quorum is restored.

FY 2016 8.7% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months. 

FY 2022 PG discontinued in mid-FY 2021.

FY 2017 3.4% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months.

FY 2023 Not applicable.

FY 2018 8% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months.

FY 2019 9% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months. 

FY 2020

Postponed/not rated; will consider

new goal/measure when quorum 

is restored. 

FY 2021 This PG was discontinued in midFY 2021 and not rated.

Management Objective M3: Improve and maintain information technology and 

information services programs to support agency mission and administrative functions.

Beginning in FY 2022, this objective is combined with previous objective M4, renumbered 

as M2, and reads “Modernize information technology to support agency mission and 

administrative functions.” 

Results indicate this objective was Exceeded. Results from the FY 2021 IS indicated that the 

average positive responses by employees about the availability and reliability of the IT infrastructure 

and for employee satisfaction with IT support exceeded their respective targets. The FY 2021 target 

to finalize a goal statement and define a measure for cybersecurity was met. 

Beginning in FY 2022, this IT operations objective will be combined with the IT modernization 

objective (previously M4) and renumbered M2. The PGs for this new objective will include:

reliability of IT infrastructure (eliminating the part of the goal and measure relating to the

“availability” of the IT infrastructure as it is subsumed under reliability); internal IRM customer 

service; cybersecurity; modernizing e-adjudication (e-adjudication); and effective cloud-based 

services. The FY 2022 and FY 2023 targets for IS responses on the reliability of IT infrastructure 

and internal IRM customer service are 70 percent or higher. The FY 2022 target for cybersecurity is 
26 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

to scan 75% of assets through the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Continuous 

Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program. The FY 2023 target for cybersecurity is TBD based on 

FY 2022 results. The FY 2022 and FY 2023 targets for modernizing e-adjudication and for cloudbased services are described under FY 2021 objective M4. 

Performance Goal M3-1: Ensure availability and reliability of MSPB IT systems, hardware, 

and applications. Beginning in FY 2022, this PG reads “Ensure reliability of MSPB IT 

systems, hardware, and applications” and is renumbered M2-1.

Measure: Average percent agreement with relevant questions on the MSPB IS; ensure disaster 

recovery capability. Beginning in FY 2022, disaster recovery will be removed from the measure.

Results Targets

FY 2015

The target for average unscheduled 

downtime was met (1.16%). However, 

MSPB had a significant disruption in its 

IT infrastructure resulting in the loss of 

the virtual environment and permanent 

loss of significant employee working 

and archived documents. 

FY 2021 Average agreement = 70% or higher.

FY 2016

Implemented cloud backup service for 

OneDrive and an isolated test 

environment; monitoring nightly 

backups; upgraded network hardware 

in many locations; began new IT 

Testing Group to test new technology 

and applications; assessed and adjusted

M3 goals, measures, and targets for 

FY 2017 and beyond to take advantage 

of IS data for selected IT measures.

FY 2022 Average agreement for reliability = 

70% or higher.

FY 2017

2017 IS average agreement = 58%, 

compared to the 2016 result of 45%. FY 2023 Average agreement for reliability = 70% or higher.

FY 2018 IS average agreement = 64%.

FY 2019 IS average agreement = 67%.

FY 2020 IS average agreement = 79%.

FY 2021 IS average agreement = 83%.

Performance Goal M3-2: Ensure satisfaction with internal IT support and services.

Beginning in FY 2022, this PG is renumbered as M2-2.

Measure: Average percent agreement on relevant IS questions. 

Results Targets

FY 2016 New PG in FY 2017. FY 2021 Average agreement = 70% or higher.

FY 2017 2017 IS average agreement = 52%, 

compared to the 2016 result of 47%. FY 2022 Average agreement = 70% or higher.

FY 2018 IS average agreement = 72%. FY 2023 Average agreement – 70% or higher.

FY 2019 IS average agreement = 72%; goal 

renumbered as M3-2 for FY 2020.

FY 2020 IS average agreement = 80%.

FY 2021 IS average agreement = 78%.
27 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Performance Goal M3-3: Continuously enhance cybersecurity. Beginning in FY 2022, this 

PG is renumbered as M2-3.

Measure: Percentage of IT assets scanned through the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program. 

Results Targets

FY 2020 New goal in FY 2021

FY 2021 Finalize the goal statement and define a 

measure for tracking cybersecurity. 

FY 2022 75% of assets scanned.

FY 2021 Measure and FY 2022 target developed. FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

Management Objective M4: Modernize core business applications to achieve electronic adjudication, 

and provide a web-based survey capability. Beginning in FY 2022, this objective is combined with 

Objective M3 and renumbered as M2. (See changes above under FY 2021 objective M3.)

Results indicate this objective was Met. MSPB met the target for modernizing adjudication 

business applications. Wireframes for new applications and pilot release 1 were completed. The 

percentages of electronic filings of initial appeals and pleadings were the highest since we started 

measuring them in FY 2012. The MPS was successfully completed via our new web-based survey 

capability in April 2021; an authority to operate (ATO) the survey platform was issued; and a 

System of Records Notice (SORN) for MSPB studies was published.

The new M2 objective is described under FY 2021 objective M3, above. The FY 2022 target for 

modernizing core business applications is to substantially complete the new system. The FY 2023 

target for that goal is to implement the new system. Beginning in FY 2022 the survey PG is 

expanded to include all cloud-based services. The FY 2022 target for the cloud-based services PG is 

to review these services and determine how to best measure this PG. The FY 2023 targets for that 

goal is TBD based on FY 2022 results.

Performance Goal M4-1: Improve efficiency of adjudication case processing. Beginning in 

FY 2022, this PG is renumbered as M2-4.

Measure: Modernize core adjudication applications; proportion of cases processed entirely 

electronically.

Results Targets

FY 2015

Interim indicators: 56% of initial 

appeals and 80% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Issued a Request for 

Information on e-adjudication and 

Guidance on archiving electronic 

case files (ECFs). Developed a 

timeline for expanding ECFs and 

implementing mandatory e-filing for 

agencies and representatives. 

FY 2021

Deliver roadmap for IT modernization, 

including moving MSPB applications 

to the cloud. 
28 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2016

Interim indicators: 61% of initial 

appeals and 81% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Expanded ECF Pilot to 

the Denver FO. Implemented new 

e-Appeal servers, and up-graded the 

e-Appeal LiveCycle and Active PDF 

document conversion/assembly 

software. Developed and implemented 

ECF marking capability and 

documentation in Quick Case and Law 

Manager and conducted training. 

Submitted personnel actions to 

support adding critical skills to help 

ensure expertise needed for 

e-adjudication. 

FY 2022 Substantially complete the new system.

FY 2017

Interim indicators: 61% of initial 

appeals and 82% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Arranged two vendor 

demonstrations of appeals workflow 

solutions. Completed significant work 

on e-Appeal release 9.7, a new 

enhanced version of the Quick Case 

application, a new Document 

Management System Upload 

Application (for litigation cases), and 

essentially completed a new application 

to automate the completion of ECFs 

(for courts, Department of Justice, 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, etc.). Partnered with 

OMB’s Office of the Federal Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) for weekly 

calls or meetings regarding this goal. 

FY 2023 Implement the new system.

FY 2018

Interim indicators: 69% of initial 

appeals and 89% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Completed requirements 

development for new core business 

applications, including those to 

support e-adjudication, and issued the 

Request for Proposal.

FY 2019

Interim indicators: 69% of initial 

appeals and 89% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Awarded contract for 

new core business applications; began 

configuring e-filing and initial appeals 

processing components.
29 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

FY 2020

Interim indicators: 77% of initial 

appeals and 93% of pleadings were 

filed electronically, an increase from 

FY 2019 and the highest MSPB has 

experienced since 2013; significantly 

expanded ECFs to allow for use in any 

FY 2020 appeal, and any FY 2019 case 

in RO/FOs where the electronic 

record is complete as an ECF. 

Continued development of initial 

appeal process on new application

platform. Further modernization 

progress delayed due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. 

FY 2021

Interim indicators: 84% of initial 

appeals and 94% of pleadings were 

filed electronically. Wireframes for 

new application completed, pilot 

release 1 completed for next 

generation adjudication system. 

Performance Goal M4-2: Improve agency survey capability. Beginning in FY 2022, this 

PG reads “Deploy and maintain effective, secure cloud-based services” and is 

renumbered M2-5.

Measure: Ensure secure, web-based survey application in conjunction with 1C-3. A new measure 

for cloud-based services will be defined in FY 2022.

Results Targets

FY 2017

Drafted a Performance Work Statement 

for moving our data center to the cloud. 

Continued to work with OMB’s Office 

of the Federal CIO regarding this PG. 

Collaborated with OPE and DOI to 

assess obtaining a secure cloud-based 

solution to analyze OPM data.

FY 2021 Support successful implementation of 

Governmentwide survey (under 1C-3).

FY 2018

Work accelerated on IT modernization 

and it became clear that separately 

migrating to a new data center would 

not be cost-effective because the new 

core applications will be cloud-based. 

Therefore, data center migration 

resources were devoted to improving 

disaster recovery for the existing data 

center and supporting collateral projects 

necessary for comprehensive IT 

modernization to achieve 100% 

e-adjudication. 

FY 2022

No numeric target. Review these 

services and determine how to best 

measure this goal.

FY 2019 Procured a new web-based, FedRAMP 

certified survey application.

FY 2023 TBD based on FY 2022 results.

FY 2020

Supported initial access and awarded 

contract for technical support, and 

issued an authority to operate for the 

Qualtrics web-based survey platform.

FY 2021

MPS successfully completed via the new 

web-based survey capability in 

April 2021; an ATO for the survey 

platform was issued; and a SORN was 

published for MSPB studies.
30 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish MSPB’s Objectives 

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

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

Strategic Goal 1

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

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

adjudication and ADR processes.

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

management, the order in which cases are voted, etc.) to reducing the backlog of petitions 

for review (PFRs) and other cases at HQ, while ensuring each matter receives accurate and 

due consideration; determine how to track and measure success in reducing this backlog; and 

implement appropriate changes to the PGs, measures, and targets in MSPB’s Annual 

Performance Plans (APPs) to ensure transparency in accomplishing this important objective.

2. Issue regulations to effectively and efficiently implement changes in statute, regulation, 

policy, or case law, as necessary.

3. Consider and implement requests for additional HC (e.g., additional FTE) and other 

resources, and use all flexibilities (e.g., details, temporary hires) to ensure MSPB has 

sufficient adjudication staff to reduce the backlog at HQ, maintain high-quality and timely 

adjudication of new HQ cases, and continue to maintain high-quality and timely adjudication 

of initial appeals, including remands, on PFR.

4. Review the measures for adjudication quality in the ROs/FOs and at HQ to ensure they

focus on appropriate aspects of the adjudication process and decision quality. Consider 

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

(e.g., the Board on PFR or the courts). Ensure an appropriate balance of focus and 

measurement on adjudication quality and accuracy versus adjudication quantity or speed.

5. Modernize MSPB’s core adjudication business applications including its electronic filing 

(e-filing) platform, case management, document management, and document assembly 

capabilities as MSPB transitions from paper to 100% electronic adjudication (e-adjudication).

Consider automated e-filing customer feedback methods when the new system 

is implemented.

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

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

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

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

2018 (Evidence Act)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

designing and implementing an automated survey for participants in HQ cases.
31 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

9. Review adjudication staff performance management plans and processes, and update them 

as necessary to ensure accountability for the adjudication process, including the quality of 

adjudication data, quality of adjudication decisions, timeliness of case processing, and 

customer satisfaction with the appeals process, within available resources.

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

1. Improve the transparency of enforcement case processing by reporting compliance 

timeliness separately for HQ and the RO/FOs, and consider reporting data by agency, 

as appropriate.

2. Consider approaches to improve timely and complete compliance with MSPB decisions and 

orders (including reduction of the backlog of compliance decisions at HQ). Approaches 

could include coordinating with individual agencies and assessing the use of existing and new 

accountability mechanisms (including changes to law or regulation).

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

Federal human capital management issues.

1. Ensure timely publication of reports of merit systems studies (following over five years

without a quorum). Determine and implement appropriate changes to the PGs, measures, 

and targets in MSPB’s APPs to ensure transparency in accomplishing this important goal. 

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

documents (e.g., research reports, research briefs, perspectives, Issue of Merit newsletter 

articles, etc.), and disseminate the documents in suitable ways to both broad-based and 

targeted audiences and stakeholders.

3. Ensure appropriate and timely release of survey data.

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

surveys to support the merit systems studies program.

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

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

survey participation.

6. Ensure MSPB has sufficient analytic and support staff to conduct high-quality objective 

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

conveying such information to relevant stakeholders.

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

download study reports from the MSPB website.

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

of OPM, as appropriate.

1. Consider any changes to track and measure success in processing cases involving the review 

of OPM regulations and implement appropriate changes to the PGs, measures, and targets 

in MSPB’s APPs to ensure transparency in accomplishing this important goal. 

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

recipients through the publication of MSPB’s Annual Reports. 
32 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Strategic Goal 2

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

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

engagement.

1. Consider publicizing outreach opportunities to related agencies (OPM, OSC, the Equal 

Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), the Office of Government Ethics, etc.) to 

increase, within available resources, outreach activities designed to improve the practice and 

understanding of merit, MSPs, and PPPs by Federal employees, policymakers, key 

stakeholders, and the public.

2. Ensure outreach events reach all appropriate audiences including those on both sides of the 

adjudication process. Consider targeted engagement with key stakeholder groups (e.g., 

affinity groups, Federal employee and management groups, legal groups, researchers, etc.) to 

improve knowledge of MSPB’s work and its role in protecting merit as well as to support 

Administration priorities.

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

improve efficiency of outreach and reduce travel costs.

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

access to MSPB information.

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

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

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

stakeholder needs.

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

stakeholders and the public by developing and sharing informational and educational 

materials and guidance.

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

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

2. Consider using social media to provide to stakeholders and the public information about a 

merit-based civil service and MSPB’s work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements for periodic merit systems training for all Federal employees similar to the 

requirements for the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation 

Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) to implement programs for Federal employees and the public 

by recognizing agencies’ merit systems educational efforts.
33 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Management Objectives

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

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

MSPB’s mission and support functions successfully.

1. Initiate and maintain a continual strategic human capital planning (SHCP) process to address

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

requirements. This may include reviewing positions and overall MSPB grade structure, 

identifying competency gaps and training needs for mission and support functions, leadership

development and succession planning, management of critical one-deep positions, hiring and 

assessment policies and processes, use of personnel flexibilities, etc.

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

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

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

the backlog of HQ cases simultaneous with performing other adjudication work, conducting

studies, and filling career leadership vacancies.

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

training, educational resources, and developmental experiences that provide the 

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

employee orientation, improve employee understanding of data integrity and governance 

issues, and improve development for managerial and leadership positions. Collaborate with 

other agencies to obtain cost-effective training.

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

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

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

5. Use results from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and MSPB’s Internal 

Survey (IS), work with MSPB employees and the Professional Association, and apply 

leadership and management skills to strengthen and maintain a culture that supports a 

competent, diverse, inclusive, and fully engaged workforce.

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

COOP, etc.) to enable flexible work options that support mission performance, and 

workforce and workplace health and safety during emergencies.

Management Objective M2: Modernize IT to support agency mission and administrative 

functions.

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

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

administration, etc.), to support the agency’s mission and support functions, and provide for 

workplace flexibilities.

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

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

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

3. Sustain a fully functional survey capability that is certified by the Federal Risk and 

Authorization Management Program, with flexible survey design and administration to 

support deployment of secure, cloud-based, Governmentwide surveys for merit systems 

studies, program evaluation, and internal and external customer surveys. 
34 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance

Internal Management Challenges 

The most significant internal issue that affected MSPB was the lack of quorum of Board members. 

Even though the quorum is now restored, other significant internal challenges that could affect 

MSPB’s ability to carry out its mission include human capital issues and IT modernization. The 

COVID-19 pandemic is an external factor, and the internal challenges it creates are discussed in the 

external factors section.

Lack of Board Quorum. As discussed in the introduction, prior to March 4, 2022, MSPB had been 

without a quorum of Board members for five year, and without any presidentially appointed, Senateconfirmed Board members for three years. The lack of quorum led to a backlog of PFRs and other 

cases at HQ awaiting Board decisions. The backlog at HQ totaled 3,465 cases as of the end of 

September 2021. MSPB anticipates that it will take several years to process the inventory of cases at 

HQ now that a quorum is restored. However, the prolonged lack of quorum delayed resolution and 

finality for the parties to these appeals. The lack of quorum also prevented MSPB from releasing 

reports of merit systems studies, promulgating substantive regulations to accompany congressional 

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

The lack of quorum prevented MSPB from setting performance targets beginning in FY 2018. It 

also prevents the agency from rating results for several PGs and one strategic objective, including 

PFR processing timeliness, enforcement case processing, number of published reports of merit 

systems studies, and quality of initial decisions. MSPB also could not rate the PG on reviewing OPM 

regulations because there is no Board to issue decisions on requests for regulatory review. Now that 

a quorum is restored, MSPB will determine the most appropriate measures and targets for these 

PGs. The status of Board member nominations is found on page 2 of this document.

Human Capital Challenges. In addition to the lack of quorum, as of October 2021, over 

28 percent of all MSPB employees, including almost 35 percent of AJs and adjudication managers 

involved with processing initial appeals, are eligible to retire between now and the end of 2023. 

Several other MSPB employees who hold key leadership positions are eligible to retire in the near 

future. In addition, ensuring continued expertise is a challenge when employees in critical, one-deep 

positions depart the agency through retirement or transfer. MSPB can begin to resolve vacancies in 

several key leadership positions now that a quorum has been resolved. Another matter that has 

awaited restoration of a quorum, but as of March 4, 2022 has been largely resolved, is issues raised 

by the Supreme Court decision in Lucia v. the Securities and Exchange Commission, 138 S. Ct. 2044 

(2018), and its impact on MSPB AJs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessing our SHCP process and identifying ways to strengthen it are included in our program
35 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

evaluation plan on page 41. This is a timely endeavor given the future arrival of new Board members 

and the current strategic planning cycle.

5 MSPB plans to utilize external SHCP expertise to assist us. 

The success of any SHCP depends on continued, stable funding for FY 2022 and beyond. This 

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

continue to improve our processes, and at the same time, continue to perform our statutory and 

support functions effectively and efficiently. Sustained resources are necessary to have sufficient 

staff to reduce the backlog while simultaneously processing new cases at HQ, process initial appeals 

(including decision quality reviews) and adjudicating remands on PFR, publish merit systems studies 

reports, conduct other MSPB functions, and ensure adequate training and employee development.

Retaining resources is even more critical given recently enacted and proposed legislative and 

administrative changes that may affect our jurisdiction and processes. (See the next section on 

Significant External Trends and Issues.) In addition, there is some anecdotal indication that job 

candidates may be hesitant to accept job offers from MSPB over uncertainty about the lack of 

Board members. 

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

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

MSPB’s efforts to comply with Governmentwide initiatives involving improving efficiency, 

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

management directives, including OMB Memorandum M-19-21,6requiring that agencies convert 

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

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

and supporting its new, FedRAMP-certified, web-based survey capability. In FY 2021, MSPB 

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

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

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

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

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

replacing systems for case management, document management and document assembly, e-Appeal 

Online, and integrating the new application with our public-facing website, the extranet, and our 

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

application and began configuring the electronic filing and initial appeal processing components. 

Progress on this project was delayed in FY 2020 due to the pandemic. In FY 2021, wireframes of 

internal and external user interfaces representing an end-to-end schematic of the adjudication 

process were delivered and user pilot testing for initial functionality was successfully conducted. The 

adjudication application is on track to be delivered in FY 2023. This multi-year effort requires a 

significant investment of resources and will yield important improvements in infrastructure, systems, 

productivity, efficiency, and services.

MSPB must administer surveys of the Federal workforce and others to provide empirical data to 

support its merit systems studies research responsibilities. This requires MSPB to have a sustained

capacity to collect survey and other similar data in a secure, cloud-based environment. MSPB fully 

5 See OMB Circular A-11, Part 6, Section 230.

6 OMB Memorandum M-19-21, Transition to Electronic Records, June 28, 2019, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/M-19-21.pdf. 
36 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

deployed the new survey capability in 2021 and must continue to support effective deployment of this 

platform in the future. 

External Trends 

Among the external trends issues that affect MSPB’s ability to carry out its mission include the 

COVID-19 pandemic, and the Government’s response to it; changes in law, jurisdiction, and 

appeals processes; and Government reform, budget challenges, and workforce reshaping. In June 

2020, there was also a Supreme Court decision involving employment rights that could increase 

MSPB’s workload. If pending legislation does not change MSPB’s workload or adjudication 

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

statutory functions effectively and efficiently, especially in the face of the case backlog at HQ. 

Moreover, additional resources may be needed to meet new legislative changes to MSPB’s 

adjudication procedures and simultaneously meet potential challenges caused by other 

external factors.

Changes in Law, Jurisdiction, and Appeals Processes. The APR-APP for FY 2020-2022 

contains information on the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, 140 S. Ct. 1731 

(2020) related to LGBT employment rights; the CAFC’s decision in Hessami v. MSPB, 979 F.3d 1362 

(Fed. Cir. 2020); and the NDAA for FY 2020, which explicitly protects whistleblower disclosures 

to Congress. 

On January 1, 2021, sections 1131 to 1138 of the NDAA for FY 2021 enacted the Elijah E. 

Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2020, which substantially upgraded the 

incentive process in whistleblower cases and allows, and in certain cases requires, legal 

representation for whistleblowers. Of note, Section 1108 of the NDAA for FY 2022 repeals the 

two-year probationary period for DOD employees, as defined in 10 U.S.C. Section 1599e, leaving 

most probationary periods for DOD employees at one year. Recently, the CAFC issued a decision in 

Santos v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 990 F.3d 1355 (Fed Cir. 2021). This decision 

expands the scope of admissible evidence and discovery in performance-based actions taken under 5 

U.S.C. § 4302. On September 13, 2021, MSPB and the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) entered into a memorandum of understanding concerning the rights of Transportation 

Security Officers (TSOs) to appeal to MSPB certain adverse actions, i.e., removals, demotions, and 

long-term suspensions after the TSO’s probationary period has ended, mirroring the Title 5 appeals 

rights of other Federal employees. These recent changes are likely to increase the number of cases 

filed with MSPB, increase the number of hearings, complicate adjudicating these cases, and 

potentially require additional adjudication resources. This coincides with the expected restoration of 

a quorum and the critical need to reduce the backlog of cases at HQ. MSPB will likely need 

additional adjudication resources if it is to successfully address all of these adjudication requirements.

The CAFC also issued recent precedential decisions in Connor v. VA, 8 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021), 

and Rodriguez v. VA, 8 F.4th 1290, (Fed. Cir. 2021), that affect some VA cases. In Connor, the CAFC

held that MSPB’s review of decisions taken under 38 U.S.C. § 714 must include a complete penalty 

analysis including consideration of the Douglas factors. If the Board determines that the VA did not 

consider the relevant Douglas factors or that the selected penalty is unreasonable, the matter must be 

remanded to the VA for a new penalty determination. In Rodriguez, the CAFC further held that the 

burden of proof to be applied by the VA in taking an action under 38 U.S.C. § 714 is preponderant 

evidence, not substantial evidence. The immediate effect of the rulings will be increased appeals 

remanded to the VA for a legally correct penalty analysis, higher administrative costs associated with

additional processing, and the need for new procedures for remanding and considering subsequent 
37 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

VA actions. The long-term effect will be to increase hearing frequency and hours, staff time, and 

costs associated with more legally complex § 714 adjudications. 

Transition of the New Administration. President Biden has issued several memoranda and EOs 

that affect Federal management, and they affect MSPB either directly or indirectly. Among the 

changes are revoking the 2018 labor relations EOs (see below), and issuing new memoranda and 

EOs delineating the administration’s priorities regarding external equity, the Federal workforce 

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

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

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

affirmative defenses based on discrimination when appellants believe their agency has not complied 

with the letter or intent of these directives, or if they believe that the directives themselves are 

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

impact our work. MSPB will also consider and implement changes to agency planning documents 

and imbed improvements into agency operations, functions, and processes in response to new 

priorities, as appropriate.

In the last APR-APP, MSPB reported that President Trump’s EO 13839 (May 25, 2018) may 

significantly affect MSPB’s case processing because it prohibited agencies from entering into 

settlement agreements that “erase, remove, alter, or withhold from another agency any information 

about a civilian employee’s performance or conduct in that employee’s official personnel records[.]”

OPM issued implementing regulations which were effective on November 16, 2020. President Biden 

revoked EO 13839 on January 22, 2021 (via EO 14003) and directed OPM to revisit regulations 

arising from EO 13839. OPM has yet to revoke the regulations implementing EO 13839. Until 

OPM revokes the regulations, MSPB remains constrained in its ability to accept these types of 

settlement agreements, which means more cases will be fully adjudicated instead of settled.

Federal Budgets, Government Reform, and Workforce Reshaping. Some Federal agencies, 

such as the U.S. Postal Service, have announced or put into effect reorganization plans. In addition, 

it is possible that agencies may face budget shortfalls or fiscal constraints following Federal 

pandemic expenditures.

Agencies’ budget challenges often lead to decisions that affect their employees. These decisions can 

result in adverse actions affecting Federal employees and these adverse actions are often appealable 

to MSPB, thus increasing MSPB’s workload. Furloughs, RIF actions, and some cases involving 

Voluntary Early Retirement Authority or Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments are appealable 

to MSPB. Historical trends indicate that RIFs lead to an increase in appeals filed with MSPB, and 

RIF appeals are often more complex than some other types of appeals. Workforce reshaping also 

may affect workforce management, employee engagement, and employee effectiveness. Maintaining 

MSPB’s strong merit systems studies and OPM review functions helps ensure adherence to the 

MSPs and avoidance of PPPs. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic. It is likely that the Federal expenditures related to the COVID-19 

pandemic will affect the budgets of Federal agencies in the future. While it is impossible to predict, 

it seems likely that many agencies will face budget cuts or shortfalls, which may lead to RIFs or 

furloughs of agency employees. In addition, agencies had to quickly develop new operational 

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

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

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

merit-based management, and increase PPPs. The Administration’s federal employee vaccine 
38 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

mandate was enjoined effective January 21, 2022,7 but if it is reinstated, refusal to comply with it 

would likely result in numerous removal actions across the Federal Government, which would 

increase appeals filed with MSPB. Another possibility is an increase in whistleblowing (e.g., 

whistleblowing disclosures may include allegations regarding Government actions affecting the 

health and safety of the public) and claims of retaliation for whistleblowing related to the pandemic. 

MSPB has already received appeals on actions taken against employees that were related to the 

pandemic. In the longer-term, MSPB must be prepared to ensure its studies function is able to 

assess potential impacts of the pandemic on merit-based management and the occurrence of PPPs, 

among other potential effects.

The pandemic also affected MSPB’s interactions with its customers. A large portion of MSPB initial 

appeals, PFRs, and pleadings are filed electronically. Even so, the agency developed policies for 

appellants and other case parties to continue to file by mail, and on a limited basis by email, and 

implemented video and web conferencing policies for virtual hearings. Alternative arrangements 

sometimes have been necessary for hearings when the parties do not have access to video or 

computers, or their options for web conferencing are otherwise limited. Those practices continued 

throughout FY 2021 and were made easier by continued improvements in electronic processing. 

While MSPB continued its ongoing work on modernizing our adjudication applications, our ability 

to work with our contractors involved in this effort was delayed by prohibitions on in-person 

meetings early in the pandemic. MSPB anticipates that the new system will be implemented in 

FY 2023. 

The pandemic transformed daily life for MSPB employees in 2020 and 2021. MSPB is very 

fortunate that a good deal of its work can be conducted remotely. In FY 2020, MSPB instituted or 

expanded several policies including a mandatory work at home policy, more flexible work hours, 

and additional leave options. In early July 2020, MSPB moved from mandatory to maximum 

telework and developed policies and practices for employees to coordinate visits to MSPB offices 

for brief, infrequent, and mission-essential purposes. In FY 2021, MSPB deployed new laptops and 

monitors to all employees ensuring more reliable support for remote work. Employees also had to 

balance work and family life in new and more demanding ways, including overseeing virtual or 

hybrid schooling, for the entire 2020-2021 academic year. From a work perspective, most 

employees continued to work from home full-time, and to connect virtually for meetings and to 

conduct hearings. MSPB employees involved in critical in-office functions had to manage safe trips 

to the office throughout the pandemic. 

MSPB leaders have continued to track the health and safety risks, CDC and Administration guidelines, 

and balance that information to craft policies and processes that protect the workforce and support 

the continued work of the agency. During the latter part of FY 2021, MSPB updated its COVID-19

Workplace Safety Plan and developed initial reentry plans for the return of MSPB’s workforce to 

more routine work in the office, especially in anticipation of the arrival of new Board members.

Because of the changing data related to pandemic risk, especially given the delta variant of the 

COVID-19 virus, these reentry plans must necessarily be flexible. As of October 4, 2021, MSPB 

employees had reentered MSPB offices with 25% maximum occupancy given high community 

transmission rates. However, both the trends in virus risk and the ongoing adjustments in reentry 

planning and associated guidance contribute to the continued pandemic-related stress of MSPB 

employees and leaders. Finally, even with leadership and agency support, each MSPB employee has 

had to manage the social and psychological aspects of the health risks of the virus, and the prolonged 

7 For additional information on compliance with the injunction, see the Safer Federal Workforce January 24, 2022 FAQ.
39 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

changes the virus has caused in work and life that everyone everywhere continues to face during 

the pandemic.

These external trends and issues bear on MSPB operations both directly and indirectly. They are 

likely to affect MSPB’s appeals workload, the need to change MSPB procedures, and to require 

additional MSPB resources. They emphasize the importance of MSPB’s responsibility to conduct 

studies of Federal merit systems and exercise its statutory authority to review OPM’s significant

actions to ensure that the Federal workforce continues to be managed in accordance with MSPs and 

free from PPPs. They magnify the importance of MSPB’s responsibility to promote merit and 

educate employees, supervisors, managers, and leaders on the merit systems, MSPs, PPPs, and MSPB 

appellate procedures, processes, and case law. MSPB’s educational and outreach functions improve 

workforce management over time and may reduce the time and cost of processing appeals for 

agencies, appellants, and the Government. 
40 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

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. Program evaluation is critical to ensuring that 

MSPB continues to achieve its mission effectively and efficiently to provide value now and in the 

future. Emphasis on program evaluation has increased in recent years. The Evidence Act and the

Federal Data Strategy are also relevant to agency program evaluation and performance measurement.8

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

statutory mission and comply with GPRAMA requirements and recent program evaluation guidance 

from OMB could require acquiring resources and enhancing program evaluation staff. A relatively 

small increase in MSPB’s program evaluation resources and staff would likely yield a large return in 

efficiency and cost savings for MSPB. In turn, this would improve the value MSPB brings to 

agencies, Federal employees, individual parties to cases filed with MSPB, and to the public. If 

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

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

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

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

evaluation activities. 

Performance Measurement: Verifying and Validating Performance Information

Most quantitative measures of MSPB’s adjudication performance (case processing in the RO/FOs 

and HQ, compliance case processing, and review of OPM regulations) come from its automated 

case management system (known as Law Manager), which tracks location, timeliness, outcomes, and 

other information about cases filed with MSPB. MSPS strives for completeness, quality control, 

verification and validation of these performance data in this system using controlled user access, 

limitations in field data entry, operating guides, and processes for cross-checking and correction of 

data throughout and at the end of the FY. Data fields to support new adjudication PGs or measures 

may be added to our case management system and new processes and training provided to users

as necessary.

Results for the PGs related to merit systems studies, review of OPM significant actions, and 

educational materials can be verified and validated by examining MSPB’s public website. MSPB 

employees provide data for outreach events and for external references to our work in databases 

accessible to them on the agency’s intranet Portal. Additional information about external references 

to our work is obtained through structured news searches in Westlaw. Outreach and external 

references are examined and summarized at the end of the year by MSPB’s Performance 

Improvement Officer (PIO). Data for MSPB’s PGs related to HC management, IT reliability, and 

internal IRM customer service are collected using OPM’s FEVS or MSPB’s IS. The IS also provides 

customer satisfaction results for internal agency programs. The PIO designs, administers, analyzes,

and reports the results of these surveys, including those needed for PG measures. Each year, FEVS 

data are posted on MSPB’s website and IS data are posted on the Portal. Other quantitative and 

qualitative performance measures are reported by MSPB’s program offices. For example, IRM

8 Public Law (Pub. L.) 115-435, and see https://strategy.data.gov.
41 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

ensures that data for the new PGs on cybersecurity and cloud-based services are verified, validated, 

and reported to the PIO. 

In FY 2021, MSPB improved its performance measurement policies. Data integrity, the 

transformation to 100% e-adjudication, and new core business applications continually underscore 

the importance of persistent improvement in performance measurement. MSPB developed a new 

data integrity and certification policy and process for WPEA data, to begin in FY 2022. In addition 

to WPEA data, this policy applies to certifying performance data to be reported in MSPB’s APRAPPs and Annual Reports. MSPB will expand this policy to other adjudication and performance 

data as appropriate. 

Results and Status of Program Evaluation Activity

Data integrity and assessment of processing WPEA cases at MSPB. The Government 

Accountability Office’s (GAO) 2016 report on the WPEA recommended updating the user guide 

for entering data at MSPB and improvements to MSPB’s data quality checks to help identify 

discrepancies in WPEA data. MSPB initially assessed the data entry and data quality processes used 

for adjudication case management data, including, but not limited to, whistleblower data. In 

FY 2018, MSPB defined requirements for modernizing its core business applications, to emphasize 

data quality and automated checks in the new application. As mentioned above, MSPB approved a 

data integrity policy and review process for WPEA data in FY 2021, including certification of 

adjudication data included in MSPB’s external reports. Updated user guidance will be issued in 

FY 2022.

Program Evaluation Status

MSPB Program Evaluation Status

Program/ 

System to 

Evaluate

Evaluation 

Start Year Status

Case 

processing 

and data 

integrity in 

the RO/FOs

FY 2017

Initial recommendations were provided by the GAO WPEA report. Additional 

improvements were determined by MSPB’s internal assessment of data entry processes 

for case management data. In FY 2018, further progress defined the adjudication process 

as integral to the initiative to developing requirements for new core business applications. 

Results of these efforts will help ensure compliance with GAO’s recommendations in the 

WPEA report. In FY 2021, MSPB issued a new data integrity policy and certification 

process for WPEA and other adjudication and performance data. This policy and 

process—and new user guidance—will be implemented in FY 2022. 

Proposed Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement System Review Schedule

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

through FY 2023 is provided below. Changes in the specifications for these evaluations or in the 

evaluation schedule may occur if a new Chair has a different preference.

Program/Performance Measurement System Evaluation Start Year (FY)

Implementation of SHCP process 2022

Assess agency telework usage and reporting 2022

Administrative functions of OCB 2023
42 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2021

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

FY 2021. This report reflects cases processed from October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021, 

and includes data on receipts and outcomes of initial appeals, and receipts of PFRs in which 

violations of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and/or 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) were alleged.9

Adjudicating appeals is an ongoing process and appeals are often closed in a different year than they 

were received. Therefore, the figures for initial appeals (or cases) received (i.e., Figure 1) and 

outcomes of initial appeals processed (i.e., Figures 3 and 6) in any given year will not be comparable. 

Data for PFRs received with claims related to whistleblowing are included in Figure 9. Data on PFR 

outcomes for whistleblower cases are not included in this report as no PFR decisions were issued by 

the Board at HQ in FY 2021 due to the lack of quorum through FY 2021. 

There generally are two types of appeals that can involve claims of reprisal under §§ 2302(b)(8) and 

(b)(9). An otherwise appealable action (OAA) appeal involves an action that is directly appealable to 

the Board, such as a removal, demotion, or suspension of more than 14 days. In such an appeal, 

MSPB will review both the appealable action and the claim of reprisal for engaging in protected 

activity as an affirmative defense. An individual right of action (IRA) appeal—which may be based 

on either an action that could have been appealed directly to the Board or on a less severe action 

that is not directly appealable—is limited to the issue of whether the action was taken because of 

protected activity. In this kind of case, the individual can appeal the claim of reprisal to the Board 

only if they file a complaint with OSC first, and OSC does not seek corrective action on the 

individual’s behalf.10 

Figure 1 displays data on the number and 

types of appeals that MSPB received in 

FY 2021 in which violations of 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) were alleged. 

Appeals received by RO/FOs fall into 

three categories: initial appeals, remanded 

appeals, and refiled appeals. Initial appeals 

are new appeals filed by an appellant for 

the first time and thus represent new 

cases alleging reprisal. Remanded appeals 

are appeals that were previously 

adjudicated by a RO/FO, but which have 

been remanded on PFR by the Board at 

HQ, or by a Federal circuit court on 

appeal of a final Board decision.11 Refiled 

appeals are appeals that are refiled—by 

the appellant or on the AJ’s own 

motion—because they were previously 

9 This report generally refers to claims raised under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9); however, this report does not include claims raised under 

§ 2302(b)(9)(A)(ii), as 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a) allows appellants to seek corrective action from MSPB as a result of prohibited personnel 

practices described only in § 2302(b)(8) or § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). 

10 Complaints in IRA appeals go first to OSC for review and, if warranted, OSC conducts an investigation. According to OSC, it is 

during this process that agencies often choose to take corrective action or settle an issue informally before OSC files a case with 

MSPB. MSPB adjudicates IRA appeals that have had the chance to be resolved while at OSC, but OSC did not seek corrective action. 

11 In FY 2021, there were no appeals remanded by the Board, as no Board decisions were issued on PFRs due to the lack of quorum. 

All remanded appeals in Figure 1 are cases that were remanded by a Federal circuit court on appeal of a final Board decision. 

41

1

169

89

11

339

130

12

508

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Refiled Appeals Remanded Appeals Initial Appeals

Figure 1: FY 2021 Appeals Received in Regional 

and Field Offices with Claims Under 

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

OAAs IRAs Total
43 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

dismissed without prejudice (DWOP) to refiling. A DWOP is a procedural option that allows for 

the dismissal and subsequent refiling of an appeal, often to allow the parties more time to prepare 

for the litigation of their cases. Remanded or refiled appeals are not new cases; they are separately 

docketed appeals that are related to initial appeals filed earlier in the same FY or in a prior FY. If the 

related initial appeal was filed in the same FY, it would be included in the number of initial appeals. 

Because the RO/FOs must process and issue decisions in remanded and refiled appeals, these 

appeals are considered part of MSPB’s workload of appeals containing claims under §§ 2302(b)(8) 

and/or 2302(b)(9). 

An appellant can file an appeal 

alleging a violation of § 2302(b)(8) 

only, a violation of § 2302(b)(9) only, 

or a violation of both.12 Figure 2 

depicts the number of appeals, both 

OAA appeals and IRA appeals, that 

were decided in FY 2021 in the 

RO/FOs and whether the appeal 

contained (a) a claim(s) under 

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

§ 2302(b)(9) only; or (c) claims under 

both §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9). 

Figure 3 breaks down the totals 

displayed in Figure 2 for OAA 

appeals by depicting the outcomes of 

OAA appeals decided in the 

RO/FOs in which violations of 

§§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) were 

alleged. It is important to note that the outcome of an OAA appeal is separate from the outcome of a 

§ 2302(b)(8) or (b)(9) claim.

13 An OAA appeal can be dismissed for a variety of reasons that have 

nothing to do with the merits of any reprisal claim raised therein. For example, the appeal may be 

untimely filed, the action or the appellant might be outside the Board’s appellate jurisdiction, or the 

appellant might have made a binding election to challenge the action in another forum (such as 

through negotiated grievance or arbitration procedures). This figure includes appeals that were 

withdrawn and appeals that were DWOP.14 Cases are settled at the discretion of both parties. 

Settlement agreements consist of terms acceptable to both parties, thus the agreement resolves the 

dispute in a way that both parties achieve some positive result. 

12 Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) prohibit reprisal against an employee or applicant for employment based on different types of 

protected activity. Section 2302(b)(8) prohibits reprisal because of any disclosure that the employee or applicant reasonably believes 

evidences certain enumerated categories of wrongdoing. Employees who allege a violation of (b)(8) are typically referred to as alleging 

“reprisal for whistleblowing.” Section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) prohibits reprisal because of the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance 

right with regard to a violation of § 2302(b)(8). Section 2302(b)(9)(B) prohibits reprisal because of testifying for or otherwise assisting 

any individual in the exercise of any right under § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) or (ii). Section 2302(b)(9)(C) prohibits reprisal because of 

cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General (or any other component responsible for internal investigation or 

review) of an agency or OSC. Section 2302(b)(9)(D) prohibits reprisal for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual 

to violate a law, rule, or regulation. 

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

outcomes of claims. 

14 Note that DWOP cases are listed here for completeness, but they do not reflect the final outcomes of whistleblower issues. DWOP 

cases can be refiled for final review of these issues. 

165

27

48

286

7

168

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Appeals with Only a

2302(b)(8) Claim

Appeals with Only a

2302(b)(9) Claim

Appeals with both (b)(8)

& (b)(9) Claims

Figure 2: Appeals Decided in the Regional and 

Field Offices That Raised Claims Under 

§§ 2302(b)(8) and/or 2302(b)(9)

OAAs IRAs
44 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

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

claims may differ.15 Therefore, we are reporting the outcome of both (b)(8) and (b)(9) claims for 

cases in which both claims were raised and the OAA appeal was adjudicated on the merits, as 

depicted in Figures 4 and 5 below.

Figure 4 displays the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(8) claims within the 57 OAA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in the 

RO/FOs.16 17 It includes both the 

38 OAA appeals adjudicated on the merits 

with a § 2302(b)(8) claim only, and the 

19 OAA appeals adjudicated on the merits 

with both §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) claims, 

as referenced in Figure 3.18

The fact that corrective action is not 

ordered in an OAA appeal does not 

necessarily mean that the appellant 

obtained no relief. For example, in a 

removal appeal in which the appellant 

alleges reprisal, the Board could reverse 

the removal action because the agency 

failed to prove that the appellant 

committed the charged misconduct, or it 

could mitigate the removal penalty, while 

also finding that the appellant failed to 

establish reprisal. In any appeal involving

15 For example, an appellant may allege that they were removed in violation of § 2302(b)(8) for disclosing to their supervisor their

belief that a practice at the agency endangered public health. In the same appeal, they also may allege that they were removed in 

violation of § 2302(b)(9) for testifying in a coworker’s MSPB appeal which involved remedying a violation of § 2302(b)(8). In such a 

case, the appellant may decide to withdraw their § 2302(b)(9) claim, but+ prevail on their (b)(8) claim. Under that scenario, the 

outcome of the (b)(9) claim would be “Withdrawn,” whereas the outcome of the (b)(8) claim would be “Corrective Action Ordered.”

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

17 Figure 4 also includes a category of “Miscellaneous Results,” which represents OAA appeals that were adjudicated on the merits but 

wherein the § 2302(b)(8) claims in those cases were not adjudicated on the merits. An AJ may fully adjudicate an OAA appeal on the 

merits but not adjudicate the reprisal claim for a variety of reasons. For example, an AJ may strike a reprisal claim as a sanction for an 

appellant’s repeated failure to comply with the AJ’s orders, or determine that the Board is precluded from considering the reprisal 

claim because a security clearance determination is at issue. 

18 In FY 2021, there were no OAA appeals adjudicated on the merits in which a section 2302(b)(8) claim was raised and corrective 

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

Ordered – No Personnel Action.”

Figure 3: Outcomes in OAA Appeals Decided in the Regional and Field Offices

Types of 

Claim(s) Raised DWOP Settled Withdrawn

Dismissed 

(other than 

DWOP) 

Adjudicated 

on the Merits Total

Section 2302(b)(8) Only 28 30 21 48 38 165

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 7 1 0 9 10 27

Both Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 11 4 3 11 19 48

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered, 2, 3%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered -

Agency Would 

Have Taken 

Same Action, 

17, 30%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Protected 

Disclosure, 19, 

33%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Contributing 

Factor, 16, 

28%

Reprisal Claim 

Withdrawn, 1, 

2%

Miscellaneous 

Results, 2, 4%

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

OAA Appeals Adjudicated on the Merits in the 

Regional and Field Offices
45 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

a reprisal claim, the Board shall order corrective action for the reprisal claim if the appellant has 

demonstrated that: (1) they made a protected disclosure; (2) the agency has taken or threatened to 

take a personnel action against them; and (3) their protected disclosure was a contributing factor in 

the personnel action. However, corrective action shall not be ordered if, after a finding that a 

protected disclosure was a contributing factor, the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing 

evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such disclosure.

Figure 5 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(9) claims within the 29 OAA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in the 

RO/FOs. This figure includes the 

10 OAA appeals adjudicated on the 

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

and the 19 OAA appeals adjudicated 

on the merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) 

and (b)(9) claims, as referenced in 

Figure 3. Figure 4 divides the outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) claims within OAA appeals adjudicated on 

the merits into subcategories of “Corrective Action Not Ordered” (i.e., no contributing factor, no 

protected disclosure, and the agency would have taken the same action). However, Figure 5 displays 

the outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) claims within OAA appeals adjudicated on the merits only in the 

broader categories of “Corrective Action Ordered,” “Corrective Action Not Ordered,” “Claim 

Withdrawn” and “Miscellaneous Results.”19 Additionally, the “Corrective Action Not Ordered” 

category in Figure 5 includes OAA appeals in which the § 2302(b)(9) claim was not reached. As 

explained above with respect to Figure 4, an AJ may fully adjudicate an OAA appeal on the merits 

but not adjudicate the reprisal claim for a variety of reasons. As previously noted, the outcome of an 

appeal is separate from the outcome of a §§ 2302(b)(8) or (b)(9) claim. 

Figure 6 breaks down the totals displayed in Figure 2 for IRA appeals by depicting the outcomes of 

those cases decided in the RO/FOs in which violations of §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) were alleged. 

In an IRA appeal, an appellant “shall seek corrective action from OSC before seeking corrective 

action from the Board.”20 If an IRA appeal is dismissed for “failure to exhaust” (i.e., because the 

appellant failed to first seek corrective action from OSC), the appellant can file a new IRA appeal 

after fulfilling the administrative exhaustion requirement.21 Figure 6 also includes IRA appeals that 

19 The “Miscellaneous Results” category represents OAA appeals that were adjudicated on the merits but the § 2302(b)(9) claims in 

those cases were not adjudicated on the merits. 

20 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). 

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

alleged includes an IRA appeal that was dismissed for failure to exhaust. 

Figure 5: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) Claims in OAA Appeals

Adjudicated on the Merits in the Regional and Field Offices

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered

Claim 

Withdrawn

Miscellaneous 

Results Total

0 28 0 1 29

Figure 6: Outcomes in IRA Appeals Decided in the Regional and Field Offices

Type of Claim(s) DWOP Settled Withdrawn

Dismissed, 

Failure to 

Exhaust

Dismissed, 

Other 

Grounds

Adjudicated 

on Merits Total

Section 2302(b)(8) Only 71 45 22 26 96 26 286

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 0 1 1 0 1 4 7

Both Sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 43 33 6 7 31 48 168
46 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

were dismissed without prejudice.22 In addition, as in OAA appeals, cases can be settled at the 

discretion of both parties. Settlement agreements consist of terms acceptable to both parties, thus 

the agreement resolves the dispute in a way that both parties achieve some positive result. 

Figure 7 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(8) claims within the 

74 IRA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits in the RO/FOs.23 It includes 

the outcomes of the 26 IRA appeals 

adjudicated on the merits with a 

§ 2302(b)(8) claim only and the 

48 IRA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) and 

(b)(9) claims, as referenced in 

Figure 6. Just as in an OAA appeal, 

the Board shall order corrective 

action for the reprisal claim in an 

IRA appeal if the appellant has 

demonstrated that: (1) they made a 

protected disclosure; (2) the agency 

has taken or threatened to take a 

personnel action against them; and 

(3) their protected disclosure was a 

contributing factor in the personnel 

action. However, corrective action shall not be ordered if, after a finding that a protected disclosure 

was a contributing factor, the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would 

have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such disclosure. 

Figure 8 depicts the resolution of 

§ 2302(b)(9) claims within the 52 IRA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in 

RO/FOs. This includes the outcomes 

of the 4 IRA appeals adjudicated on the 

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

and the 48 IRA appeals adjudicated on 

the merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) and 

(b)(9) claims, as referenced in Figure 6. 

While Figure 7 divides the outcomes of § 2302(b)(8) claims within IRA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits into subcategories of “Corrective Action Not Ordered” (i.e., no contributing factor, no 

personnel action, no protected disclosure, and the agency would have taken the same action), 

Figure 8 displays the outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) claims within IRA appeals adjudicated on the merits 

only in the broader categories of “Corrective Action Ordered,” “Corrective Action Not Ordered,” 

“Claim Withdrawn” and “Miscellaneous Results.” The “Corrective Action Not Ordered” category 

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

22 Note that DWOP cases are listed here for completeness, but they do not reflect the final outcomes of whistleblower issues. DWOP 

cases can be refiled for final review of these issues. 

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

Figure 8: Outcomes of § 2302(b)(9) Claims in IRA Appeals 

Adjudicated on the Merits in the Regional and Field Offices

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered

Claim 

Withdrawn

Miscellaneous 

Results Total

6 45 0 1 52

Corrective 

Action Ordered, 

6, 8%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered -

Agency Would 

Have Taken 

Same Action, 41, 

56%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Protected 

Disclosure, 21, 

28%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Personnel 

Action, 1, 1%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Contributing 

Miscellaneous Factor, 3, 4%

Results, 2, 3%

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

Appeals Adjudicated on the Merits in the Regional 

and Field Offices
47 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

An appellant or an agency 

dissatisfied with an AJ’s initial 

decision on an OAA or IRA appeal 

may file a PFR with the full Board at 

MSPB headquarters. Figure 9 shows 

the number of PFRs the Board 

received (on both OAA and IRA 

appeals) involving §§ 2302(b)(8) 

and/or (b)(9) claims. No Board 

decisions were issued on PFRs in 

FY 2021 due to the continued lack of 

quorum; however, MSPB continues 

to receive, review, and draft 

proposed decisions on PFRs. In 

addition, on May 11, 2018, former 

Vice Chairman Mark A. Robbins 

signed a policy stating that the Clerk 

of the Board may exercise the delegated authority to grant a withdrawal of a PFR when requested by 

a petitioner if there is no apparent untimeliness of the petition and if no other party objects to the 

withdrawal.24 In FY 2021, the Office of the Clerk of the Board granted five requests to withdraw 

PFRs in cases that involved §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) claims.

24 See https://mspb.gov/appeals/files/Policy_Regarding_Withdrawal_of_a_Petition_for_Review_1515773.pdf.

39

70

109

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

OAA IRA Total

Figure 9: Petitions for Review Received 

in Appeals with Claims Under 

5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9)
48 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

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

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7701(i)(1) and (2), MSPB provides FY 2021 case processing 

information. In FY 2021, MSPB processed 4,867 total cases (not including ALJ and original 

jurisdiction cases at HQ). Seventy-two percent of initial appeals (including addendum cases) were 

processed in 120 days or less.25

Due to the lack of a quorum for all of FY 2021, MSPB issued no decisions from HQ. Therefore, 

MSPB will not report timeliness information for processing PFR cases at HQ. However, 17 PFR 

cases were withdrawn by order of the Clerk of the Board under a policy effected in May 2018. These 

cases did not involve a decision issued by the Board (because there was no quorum), so they are not 

included in any case processing statistics.

In general, each case is adjudicated on its merits consistent with law and legal precedent and in a 

manner consistent with the interest of fairness, which is achieved by assuring due process and the 

parties’ full participation at all stages of the appeal. Under normal circumstances, several factors 

contribute to the length of time it takes to resolve a particular case. It takes time to issue notices, 

respond to discovery and other motions, subpoena documents and people, hold conferences with 

the parties, arrange for and question witnesses, present evidence, conduct hearings, and, often, to 

participate in ADR efforts. When there is good cause to do so, the parties may be granted additional 

time in an effort to preserve due process. Adjudication also may require more time when cases 

involve new or particularly complex legal issues, numerous factual issues, or the interpretation of 

new statutory or regulatory provisions. In addition, when Board members do not agree about the 

disposition of PFR issues or cases, the need to resolve disagreements or prepare separate opinions 

may increase the time needed for adjudication. Additional factors that affect processing time are 

discussed above in the performance results section of this APR-APP.

25 In June 2017, Congress set a 180-day limit for MSPB AJs to issue decisions in VA adverse action cases (38 U.S.C. § 714(d)). 
49 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report26

26 In accordance with the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experiences Act (IDEA), (Pub. L. 115-336). 
50 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022
51 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

Appendix D: More Information about MSPB

MSPB’s Role, Functions, and Scope of Responsibilities 

During congressional hearings on the CSRA before it was passed in 1978, various members of 

Congress testified and described the role and functions of MSPB, stating that “[MSPB] will assume 

principal responsibility for safeguarding merit principles and employee rights” and be “charged with 

insuring adherence to merit principles and laws” and with “safeguarding the effective operation of 

the merit principles in practice.”27 MSPB inherited CSC’s adjudication functions and provides due 

process to employees as an independent, third-party adjudicatory authority for employee appeals 

including adverse actions (such as removals, furloughs, and certain suspensions) and retirement 

decisions. For matters within its jurisdiction, MSPB was granted the statutory authority to develop 

its adjudicatory processes and procedures, issue subpoenas, call witnesses, and enforce compliance 

with MSPB decisions. Subsequent to the CSRA, Congress expanded MSPB’s jurisdiction to hear 

appeals under a variety of other laws, giving it authority over a wide range of appeals.28 Congress 

also granted MSPB broad new authority to conduct independent, objective studies of the Federal 

merit systems and Federal HC management issues to ensure employees are managed under the 

MSPs and free from PPPs. In addition, Congress granted MSPB the authority and responsibility to 

review the rules, regulations, and significant actions of OPM. Under various statutes, MSPB serves 

as an independent, third-party adjudicatory authority for over two million Federal civilian employees 

in almost every Federal department and agency, applicants for Federal civilian jobs, and certain U.S. 

Postal Service employees and uniformed military service members.29 

Findings and recommendations from MSPB’s merit systems studies help to strengthen merit and 

improve public management and administration in the Federal executive branch. Although 

MSPB’s studies are focused on the Federal workforce and merit systems, they generally are 

applicable to the management of Federal legislative branch and judicial branch employees and 

even to public employees at the state and local levels. Through its authority to review and act on 

OPM rules, regulations, and significant actions, MSPB protects the merit systems and helps ensure 

that Federal employees are managed in adherence with the MSPs and free from PPPs. This 

authority includes employees in all agencies for which OPM sets policy, beyond the specific 

individual employees who may file appeals with MSPB. MSPB’s customers, partners, and 

stakeholders include a wide range of policymakers; Federal agencies and councils; Federal 

employees and managers and groups that represent them; appellants, appellant representatives, 

and agency representatives; professional legal groups, academia, and management research 

organizations; and good Government groups. 

27 Legislative History of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, 

March 27, 1979, Volume No. 2, pages 5-6. 

28 Beyond those included in 5 U.S.C. chapters 43 and 75, and all those set out at 5 C.F.R. Part 1201.3; the Federal Employee 

Retirement System Act of 1986, 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e), (Pub. L. 99-335), Title I, §§ 101, 100 Stat. 571 (1986); the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, (Pub. L. 103-353), codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335; whistleblower appeals including 

IRA appeals involving personnel actions listed in 5 C.F.R. § 1209.4(a) and OAAs are listed in 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.3 (a)(1) through (a)(11), 

and as amended by the WPEA (Pub. L. 112-199); the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012; the VA Accountability and 

Whistleblower Protection Act, (Pub. L. 115-41), enacted on June 23, 2017; the Follow the Rules Act (Pub. L. 115-40), enacted on 

June 14, 2017; the authority for a single Board member to extend OSC stay requests (Pub. L. 115-42); the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick 

Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (Pub L. 115-73), enacted on October 26, 2017; and most recently, section 5721 of the NDAA 

of FY 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) enacted on December 20, 2019. 

29 This includes most Federal employees under 5 U.S.C. and others such as certain Veterans Health Administration employees 

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7403(f)(3) and RIF actions affecting a career or career candidate appointee in the Foreign Service pursuant to 

22 U.S.C. § 4010a. 
52 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

MSPB Offices and Their Functions 

MSPB is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has six ROs and two FOs located throughout the 

United States. The agency is currently authorized to employ 235 FTEs. 

The Board members, consisting of the Chair, Vice Chair and Board Member, are appointed by the 

President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve overlapping, nonrenewable 7-year terms. No more 

than two of the three Board members can be from the same political party. The Board members 

adjudicate the cases brought to the Board. The Chair, by statute, is the chief executive and 

administrative officer. Except for the EEO Director who reports directly to the Chair, the Directors 

of the following offices report to the Chair through the Executive Director.

The Office of the Administrative Law Judge adjudicates and issues initial decisions in corrective 

and disciplinary action complaints (including Hatch Act complaints) brought by OSC, proposed 

agency actions against ALJs, MSPB employee appeals, and other cases assigned by MSPB. In 

FY 2021, the functions of this office were performed by ALJs at the Federal Trade Commission and 

the U.S. Coast Guard under interagency agreements.

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

Board to consider for cases in which a party files a PFR of an initial decision issued by an AJ and in 

most other cases decided by the Board. The office prepares proposed decisions on interlocutory 

appeals of AJ rulings, makes recommendations on reopening cases on the Board’s own motion, and 

provides research, policy memoranda, and advice to the Board on legal issues.

The Office of the Clerk of the Board receives and processes cases filed at MSPB HQ, rules on 

certain procedural matters, and issues Board decisions and orders. It serves as MSPB’s public 

information center, coordinates media relations, operates MSPB’s library and online information 

services, and administers the FOIA, privacy, and accessibility programs. It also certifies official 

records to the courts and Federal administrative agencies, and manages MSPB’s records systems, 

website content, and the Government in the Sunshine Act program.

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

programs. It processes complaints of alleged discrimination brought by agency employees and 

provides advice and assistance on affirmative employment initiatives to MSPB’s managers 

and supervisors. The EEO Director also coordinates MSPB’s Diversity and Inclusion Council.

The Office of Financial and Administrative Management administers MSPB’s budget, 

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

physical security, and general services functions. It develops and coordinates internal management 

programs, including reviewing agency internal controls. It also administers the agency’s servicing 

agreements with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Finance Center (NFC) for 

payroll services, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) for 

accounting services, and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for human 

resources 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; coordinates the review of OPM rules and regulations; prepares proposed 

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

OPM regulations and for other assigned cases; conducts the agency’s PFR settlement program; and 
53 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

coordinates the agency’s legislative policy and congressional relations functions. The office also 

drafts regulations, conducts MSPB’s ethics program, performs the inspector general function, and 

plans and directs audits and investigations. 

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

MSPB’s IT systems and enterprise applications, and manages MSPB’s cybersecurity program.

These services help MSPB manage its caseload efficiently and carry out its administrative and 

research responsibilities.

The Office of Policy and Evaluation carries out MSPB’s statutory responsibility to conduct special 

studies of the civil service and other Federal merit systems. Reports of these studies are sent to the 

President and the Congress and are distributed to an international audience. The office provides 

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

The office also carries out MSPB’s statutory responsibility to review and report on the significant 

actions of OPM. The office conducts special projects and program evaluations for MSPB and has 

responsibility for conducting MSPB’s functions required by GPRAMA.

The Office of Regional Operations oversees the agency’s six ROs and two FOs that receive and 

process initial appeals and related cases. This office provides guidance to AJs and oversight of the 

initial appeals adjudication process. It also manages MSPB’s MAP. AJs in the RO/FOs are responsible 

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

MSPB Organizational Chart

How MSPB Brings Value to the Merit Systems, the Federal Workforce, and the Public

The Federal merit systems are based on widely accepted organizational management practices and 

values that have been developed and reinforced through historical experience. There are costs and 

benefits associated with merit-based management of the Federal workforce. Ensuring merit system 

CHAIR MEMBER

General 

Counsel

Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

Clerk of the 

Board

Administrative 

Law Judge

Regional 

Operations Appeals Counsel Policy and 

Evaluation

Regional Offices

Atlanta, Chicago, 

Dallas,

Philadelphia,

Oakland, and

Washington, D.C.

VICE CHAIR

Field Offices

Denver and 

New York

Financial and 

Administrative 

Management

Information 

Resources 

Management

Executive 

Director

HR management services are provided by the USDA’s APHIS Business Services. Payroll services 

are provided by USDA’s NFC. Accounting services are provided by the Department of the 

Treasury’s BFS. In FY 2021, ALJ functions were performed by ALJs employed by the Federal 

Trade Commission and the U.S. Coast Guard under reimbursable interagency agreements. 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
54 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

values such as fairness in all personnel matters; hiring and advancement based on qualifications and 

performance; protection from arbitrary personnel decisions, undue partisan political influence, and 

reprisal; and assurance of due process, incurs necessary costs (e.g., in time and effort) that are not 

comparable to the private sector. For example, the Federal Government may require more time and 

effort to fill a Federal job than a private employer as a result of: (1) requirements for public notice of 

vacancies to support the merit principle of fair and open competition to attain a workforce from all 

segments of society; (2) fair and rigorous assessment of applicants consistent with the merit 

principles of equal opportunity and selection based on relative ability; and (3) review and 

documentation of applicant eligibility and entitlements in compliance with laws and public policies 

such as those relating to veterans’ preference and the disabled. These processes improve the overall 

quality of the workforce and help ensure that Federal jobs and job protections are provided to the 

most highly qualified applicants. This, in turn, helps reduce the likelihood that the Government will 

need to undertake the process to remove employees in the future. These management costs are 

necessary to ensure the ultimate goal of a strong, highly qualified, consistently staffed, merit-based 

civil service that serves in the public’s interest over the long term, rather than at the pleasure of 

political leaders. 

Despite our relatively small size and budget, MSPB provides enormous value to the Federal 

workforce, Federal agencies, and to the American taxpayer by helping to ensure a more effective 

and efficient merit-based civil service that provides better service to the public. MSPB adds value 

by providing superior adjudication services, including ADR, which ensures due process and results

in decisions that are based in law, regulation, and legal precedent, and not on arbitrary or 

subjective factors. MSPB’s adjudication process is guided by reason and legal analysis, which are 

hallmarks of both the legal system and the merit systems. The quality of MSPB’s decisions is 

evidenced by the high affirmance rate of its decisions by the courts. Centralized adjudication of 

appeals by a neutral, independent third party improves the fairness and consistency of the process 

and resulting decisions and is more efficient than separate adjudication of appeals by each agency. 

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

the adjudication process provide guidance to agencies and employees on proper behavior and the 

ramifications of improper behavior. This information, shared through outreach, our regulations, 

and extensive material on our website, improves the long-term effectiveness and efficiency of the 

civil service and supports better adherence to MSPs and prevention of PPPs. This adjudication 

information also improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the adjudication process by helping 

the parties understand the law and learn how to prepare thorough and legally sound cases. Strong 

enforcement of MSPB decisions ensures timely, effective resolution of current disputes and 

encourages more timely compliance with future MSPB decisions. 

MSPB’s high-quality, objective merit systems studies provide value by identifying and assessing 

innovative and effective merit-based management policies and practices and recommending 

improvements. MSPB studies have shown that improved hiring and selection, improved merit-based 

management, and greater employee engagement lead to a highly qualified Federal workforce, 

improved organizational performance, and better service to the public. Results, findings, and 

recommendations from MSPB’s merit systems studies function are shared through reports, 

newsletters, research and perspective briefs, and other articles posted to our website and through 

outreach. For example, one MSPB report provides information on and dispels misconceptions about 

due process in the civil service, which is useful to policymakers, managers, legal practitioners, and 

other stakeholders. Effective management processes also help reduce the occurrence and costs of 

PPPs, which negatively affect agency and employee performance. Review of OPM’s significant 

actions, rules, and regulations protects the integrity and viability of the civil service and merit systems 
55 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

and provides benefits similar to those related to merit systems studies. Better merit-based 

management helps improve employee and agency performance. It also logically leads to less 

employee misconduct and fewer adverse actions, which reduces costs in terms of fewer PPPs and 

fewer unsubstantiated appeals. This provides indirect value to the American taxpayer in decreased 

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

appropriately managing its workforce.

The Merit System Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices

The CSRA codified for the first time the values of the merit systems as the MSPs and delineated 

specific actions and personnel practices that are PPPs because they are contrary to merit system 

values.30 The MSPs include the values of: fair and open competition for positions, with equal 

opportunity to achieve a workforce from all segments of society; merit-based selection for jobs; 

advancement and retention based on qualifications and job performance; fair and equitable 

treatment in all aspects of management; equal pay for work of equal value; and training that 

improves organizational and individual performance. The MSPs also include protection from 

arbitrary action, favoritism, or coercion for political purposes; and protection against reprisal for 

lawful disclosure of violations of law and waste, fraud, and abuse. The MSPs further state that the 

workforce should be used effectively and efficiently and that all employees should maintain high 

standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest. 

The PPPs state that employees shall not take or influence others to take personnel actions that: 

discriminate for or against an individual or applicant on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, age, disabling (handicapping) condition, marital status, or political affiliation; 

consider information beyond the person’s qualifications, performance, or suitability for public 

service; or coerce political activity or commit reprisal for refusal to engage in political activity. 

These actions also may not: deceive or willfully obstruct an individual’s rights to compete for 

employment; influence a person to withdraw from competition to affect the prospects of another; 

or grant preference beyond that provided by law. The actions also may not be: based on or create 

nepotism; in retaliation or reprisal for whistleblowing—the lawful disclosure of a violation of law, 

rule or regulation, gross mismanagement or gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or danger to 

public health or safety; in retaliation or reprisal for an employee’s exercise of his or her rights and 

legal protections, or assistance to another in the person’s exercise of his or her rights; or based on 

past conduct that does not adversely affect the job. The actions also must not: knowingly violate 

veterans’ preference requirements; violate the MSPs; or implement or enforce a nondisclosure 

policy, form, or agreement, which lacks a specific statement that its provisions are consistent with 

and do not supersede applicable statutory whistleblower protections. On October 26, 2017, 

Congress created a 14th PPP, which prohibits access of medical records as part of, or to further, 

any conduct related to, any other PPP.31 On December 20, 2019, section 5721 of the NDAA for 

FY 2020 expanded the definition of disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) to include disclosures 

to Congress.32

30 5 U.S.C. § 2301 and § 2302, respectively. And see MSPB’s website for further information on MSPs and PPPs.

31 The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, (Pub. L. 115-73), amends 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) to add “(14) access 

to the medical records of another employee or applicant for employment as a part of, or otherwise in furtherance of, any conduct 

described in paragraphs (1) through (13).” 

32 The NDAA for FY 2020, (Pub. L. 116-92). 
56 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

List of Common Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

AES Annual Employee Survey

AFR Annual Financial Report

AJ Administrative Judge

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

APHIS USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APR-APP Annual Performance Report and Annual Performance Plan

AR MSPB Annual Report

ATO Authority to Operate

BFS Department of Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Service

CAFC Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement

CBJ Congressional Budget Justification

CIO Chief Information Officer

COOP Continuity of Operations Plan

CRS Congressional Research Service

CSC Civil Service Commission

CSRA Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 

DOI Department of the Interior

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DWOP Dismissal Without Prejudice

ECF Electronic case files

EEO MSPB’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

EHRI Enterprise Human Resources Integration

EO Executive Order

FAQs Frequently Asked Questions

FDS Federal Data Strategy

FedRAMP Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FO MSPB Field Office

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FTE Full-time equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accountability Office

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

HC Human Capital

HR Human Resources

HQ Headquarters
57 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

IDEA 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act

IoM Issues of Merit newsletter

IRA Individual Right of Action (type of whistleblower appeal)

IRM MSPB’s Office of Information Resources Management 

IS Internal Survey

IT Information Technology

MAP Mediation Appeals Program

MPS Merit Principles Survey

MSP Merit System Principles

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NFC USDA’s National Finance Center

OAA Otherwise Appealable Action

OCB MSPB’s Office of the Clerk of the Board

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation

OPM Office of Personnel Management

ORO MSPB’s Office of Regional Operations 

OSC Office of Special Counsel

PFR Petition for Review of an Initial Decision

PG Performance Goal

PIO Performance Improvement Officer

PPP Prohibited Personnel Practices

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RIF Reduction in Force

RO Regional Office

SES Senior Executive Service

SHCP Strategic Human Capital Plan 

SORN System of Records Notice

TBD To be determined

TSA DHS’s Transportation Security Administration

U.S.C. United States Code

USCIS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WPEA Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012
58 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2021-2023 March 28, 2022

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

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

www.mspb.gov - @USMSPB on Twitter