U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Congressional 

Budget 

Justification

FY 2023

Prepared for the 

Committee on Appropriations

March 2022
Table of Contents

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

Internal Challenges Affecting MSPB Operations.....................................................................................2

External Events Affecting MSPB Operations...........................................................................................4

FY 2023 Budget Request ...........................................................................................................8

Appropriation Language...............................................................................................................................8

Strategic Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................................9

FY 2023 Request by Object Class.............................................................................................................10

Budget Schedule O - Object Classification (thousands of dollars) ......................................................14

Budget Schedule Q - Employment Summary .........................................................................................15

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................15

About MSPB............................................................................................................................16

Board Organization.....................................................................................................................................16

Providing and Using Administrative Data for Statistical Purposes......................................................16

Adjudication .................................................................................................................................................16

Mediation Appeals Program ......................................................................................................................18

Merit Systems Studies and OPM Oversight ............................................................................................18

Publications Issued between FY 2021 – FY 2022 ..................................................................................19

Other Studies Activity.................................................................................................................................19

Information Technology.............................................................................................................................20

Human Resources........................................................................................................................................20

Financial Management ................................................................................................................................20

Equal Employment Opportunity ..............................................................................................................21

Organization Chart......................................................................................................................................22

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................................23
1

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Congressional Budget Justification

Fiscal Year 2023

Introduction

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget request is 

$51,139,000 plus $2,345,000 to be transferred from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, 

for a total FY 2023 budget request of $53,484,000. This is a $5,314,000 increase over the FY 2022 

enactment for salaries and benefits for MSPB.

As stated in our FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification, MSPB faces its most dire crisis since it 

was established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. In the absence of a Board quorum over the 

past five years (and, beginning March 1, 2019, the first time with no Board members since MSPB’s 

beginning), a petition for review (PFR) backlog of over 3,600 cases has accumulated. MSPB 

continues to receive a steady stream of new PFRs. Although career staff have drafted recommended 

decisions for the vast majority of the backlog cases, it will be an immense undertaking for the new 

Board to consider and vote on such a high volume of cases and will require an increase in staffing 

levels with corresponding funding to support it. 

The quorum was restored on March 4, 2022. Raymond Limon was appointed Vice Chair, and 

Tristan Leavitt was appointed Member of the Board. President Biden has nominated Cathy Harris to 

serve as Chair of the Board. We anticipate MSPB’s three-member Board will be in place soon. Now 

that the Vice Chair and Member are onboard, they will begin to hire their own support staff.

Historically, each Board member has, at a minimum, hired a chief counsel and a confidential 

assistant. To complete the Board staff, the Chair will appoint an executive director. These MSPB

employees will play a key role in addressing the existing backlog of PFRs along with almost 1,000 

new PFRs MSPB expects to receive each year. However, at its current appropriation level, MSPB 

would need to reduce costs in its operations in order to fund and maintain these key positions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also negatively affected MSPB’s operations. Although MSPB created 

a policy allowing limited filing by email and encouraged parties to use MSPB’s e-Appeal Online 

electronic filing system, the pandemic has affected MSPB’s ability to handle in-office operations, 

including processing paper appeals and case files. The unprecedented volume of telework has 

strained MSPB’s information technology (IT) and communication services and has slowed the 

progress of the agency’s IT modernization efforts. It has also hampered MSPB’s ability to complete 

the digitization of the PFR backlog, approximately 50% of which consists of paper case files.

Given these constraints, onboarding and training new Board members and their staffs during the 

ongoing pandemic and then help them operate in a quasi-remote environment will be challenging to 

the agency. From there, our ability to successfully adjudicate the backlog and return the agency to 

normal operations will pose the biggest test in MSPB’s history. While the stakes for the Federal 

Government and the merit system are high, with the Board in place and the appropriate staff to 

support it, MSPB will strive to overcome the challenges set before us and continue protecting the 

Federal merit systems and the rights of individuals within those systems.
2

With these significant challenges facing MSPB, holding MSPB’s funding level essentially flat—or 

more disastrously, imposing a cut—would unquestionably have an adverse effect on the agency’s 

ability to protect the Federal merit systems, ensure due process, promote the merit system principles 

(MSPs), and prevent prohibited personnel practices (PPPs). Thus, MSPB respectfully requests 

Congress’s consideration of this full budget request.

Internal Challenges Affecting MSPB Operations

Lack of Board Quorum

On January 8, 2017, the Board lost its quorum of members. Although agencies and appellants can 

file PFRs of administrative judges’ (AJ) decisions, the Board cannot issue decisions on PFRs and 

other cases at headquarters (HQ) until it has a quorum. Since the loss of quorum, the number of 

pending cases at HQ has grown into a backlog of 3,643 as of February 28, 2022. This figure 

represents about four times the number of PFRs received in a typical year. Now that the quorum is

almost fully restored and the Board can issue decisions, history suggests there will be significant 

additional workload for MSPB. In a typical year, approximately 11% of the Board’s PFR decisions 

are remanded to the AJs for further adjudication. With the arrival of new Board members, whose 

priorities may differ from those of the previous Board, an above-average percentage of cases may be 

remanded to the regional and field offices. Moreover, additional remands may occur as the new 

Board issues regulations and precedent concerning several new statutes that have been enacted 

during the period MSPB has lacked a quorum. 

Similarly, an above-average percentage of the backlog’s recommended PFR decisions that already 

have been drafted by career staff at HQ may require additional revision before issuance by the new 

Board. It is essential to fully staff MSPB’s adjudication functions to address this significant 

additional workload.

In addition to not issuing Board decisions, without a quorum, MSPB has been unable to release 

study reports to the President and Congress. MSPB conducts objective, independent research 

supporting strong merit systems that protect the public’s interest in a high-quality, diverse 

professional workforce managed under the MSPs and free from PPPs. MSPB’s research, which is 

presented in formal reports to the President and Congress, has addressed topics such as hiring 

practices and authorities, sexual harassment in the Federal workplace, whistleblower protections, 

managing employee conduct and performance problems, and the effectiveness of the human 

resources (HR) workforce. A new MSPB research agenda is ready for consideration and approval by 

the new Board. MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE) has prepared the updated research 

agenda after soliciting ideas from stakeholders (including Federal employees and supervisors, unions 

and other employee groups, agency chief human capital officers, and the public) and evaluating 

those ideas against criteria such as importance, timeliness, and practicality. That research agenda is 

ready for incoming Board members to consider when they arrive. 

The updated research agenda will determine MSPB’s studies workload for the next few years, 

including FY 2023. MSPB’s studies program needs to remain fully staffed to carry out that research 

agenda. Surveys are essential to many of the proposed studies, including those related to the 

incidence of PPPs and adherence to MSPs. MSPB procured a survey platform to avoid relying on a 

new contract for each survey, which shortens the timeline for MSPB survey activity and makes each 
3

survey more cost-effective. The research function, in conjunction with MSPB’s adjudication of 

individual appeals, and authority to review Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations and 

significant actions ensures that the Board both oversees Federal merit systems at the systemic level 

and remedies PPPs on an individual level. 

Finally, the absence of a quorum has adversely affected MSPB’s ability to promulgate regulations to 

reflect congressionally mandated changes in the agency’s jurisdiction and procedures. The last 

substantial update to MSPB’s regulations was in 2015. Since then, several changes to MSPB’s 

regulations have become necessary to ensure they comply with newly enacted statutes and to reflect

improvements in MSPB’s procedures. Once a quorum is restored, significant resources will be 

devoted to updating MSPB’s regulations. 

Retirement Eligibility and Human Capital Planning

MSPB’s enacted budgets for FYs 2014-2021 allowed the agency to sustain a sufficient workforce to 

perform its statutory functions effectively and efficiently. By the end of FY 2023, nearly 28% of 

MSPB employees will be eligible to retire. Budget reductions would cause an inability to replace 

these critical vacancies, which would result in slower case processing times—including processing 

times mandated by statute and regulation—as well as a reduction in the number, scope, and depth of 

merit system studies and publications. Such a reduction in MSPB’s workforce would also limit the 

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

and their employees understand the Board’s role and processes and interact in a timely and 

responsive way with MSPB. Educating the Federal workforce also improves efficiency and 

effectiveness throughout the Government by helping agencies understand and act in accordance 

with MSPs, avoid PPPs, and promote the overall efficiency of the civil service. 

MSPB’s IT Modernization

In FY 2019, MSPB began modernizing its core business applications, starting with the development 

of a new cloud-based case management workflow system that is certified by the Federal Risk and 

Authorization Management Program (or FedRAMP). This updated functionality will replace several 

legacy systems, including MSPB’s e-Appeal Online, document management, and document assembly 

systems. They are at or nearing end of life and prevent MSPB from achieving 100% electronic 

adjudication of appeals. Although the project was paused for several months in FY 2020 as we 

adjusted our operations in response to the pandemic, we have continued to make significant 

progress toward project completion. The new application is scheduled to go live in March 2023. 

In FY 2021, MSPB made plans to modernize all remaining legacy systems, upgrade its network 

architecture to support a hybrid workforce, increase internet capacity as MSPB transitions to cloudbased services, enhance cybersecurity consistent with Executive Order 14028, and transition 

business processes and undertake digitization initiatives to comply with the Government’s transition 

to electronic records
4

External Events Affecting MSPB Operations

There are several external factors that have affected MSPB’s operations and will continue to do so, 

resulting in the need for additional resources. 

COVID-19 Pandemic

Like everyone else, the pandemic transformed daily life for MSPB employees over the past 2 years. 

Employees had to try to balance work and family life in new and more demanding ways, e.g., 

working while caring for children and others in the home, including overseeing virtual or hybrid 

schooling, etc. From an operational perspective, employee health and safety has been and remains 

our priority, and almost every employee continued to work from home fulltime, or nearly so, under

maximum telework throughout FY 2021. Shifting or delaying some tasks temporarily helped the 

agency triage certain duties during the pandemic. That said, the pandemic severely impeded our 

ability to appropriately staff work that can only be done in-office, such as processing paper appeals 

and case files. This is especially true at HQ, where about 50% of the PFR backlog consists of 

voluminous paper case files, although efforts have been underway to convert paper files to 

electronic files. MSPB officially began reentry in October 2021, although high levels of community 

transmission have limited in-office staffing capacity pursuant to our COVID-19 Workplace Safety 

Plan. Ongoing pandemic-related stress, from the uncertainties of COVID-19 itself to the social and 

psychological isolation many are experiencing, remains an ongoing challenge for employees and 

agency leaders.

Enactment of New Statutes by Congress

Whistleblower Protection Laws

From the time the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 established the original 11 PPPs, Congress 

added only one additional PPP in the ensuing 20 years. In the past seven years, Congress has added 

two additional PPPs, both of which were prompted by concerns about whistleblower protection. 

Since the enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA), appeals 

filed in the regions and PFRs to the Board involving reprisal for whistleblowing or other activity 

protected by the WPEA have increased significantly. Twenty-five percent of all PFRs filed in FY 

2020 involved such claims. 

MSPB’s jurisdiction over whistleblowing—even in the absence of an otherwise appealable action—

may now extend over many more and varied concerns. Claims of retaliation based on the exercise of 

a right related to prior whistleblowing activity, assisting another individual in the exercise of any 

appeal, complaint, or grievance, cooperating with or disclosing information to an agency’s inspector 

general or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or for refusing to obey an order that would require 

the individual to violate a law, rule, or regulation, have been added to MSPB’s jurisdiction because of 

statutory amendments in the past ten years. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

FY 2020, enacted December 20, 2019, explicitly protects whistleblower disclosures to Congress, 

including some classified disclosures. This will likely result in more appeals to MSPB, and 

complications over properly disclosing classified information to Congress also could lead to 

increased disciplinary actions regarding improper disclosure, causing additional new appeals.
5

The WPEA also increased the complexity of adjudicating whistleblower cases. Prior to the WPEA, 

for example, many whistleblower claims failed under then-current case law because the disclosure at 

issue was made to the alleged wrongdoer or was made in the appellant’s normal course of duties. 

Such findings were made at the first step of a three-step analysis, and thus remaining issues were 

never adjudicated. Pursuant to the WPEA, such disclosures may now be found to be protected, and 

the legal analysis proceeds to the second and frequently third steps. Accordingly, a hearing is 

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

the WPEA is more complex, time-consuming, and resource intensive. 

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

for whistleblowing or other activities protected by the WPEA to appeal MSPB’s decisions to any 

Federal circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction, rather than only to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as previously had been the case. Congress made the pilot program 

permanent effective November 26, 2017. Before the pandemic this had increased travel by MSPB 

attorneys to various circuit courts across the country, and it will likely continue to require additional 

travel after the pandemic is over.

In addition to increasing the number of MSPB cases, some of the statutory changes in recent years 

will significantly affect Federal agencies. For example, both the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 2017 and the OSC Reauthorization Act contained provisions mandating proposed 

discipline for any supervisor found by the head of an agency, OSC, MSPB, an administrative law 

judge (ALJ), a Federal judge, or an inspector general to have committed whistleblower retaliation. 

For a first offense the agency must propose a suspension of at least three days, and for a second 

offense an agency must propose removal. While suspensions of 14 days and under are not otherwise

appealable to MSPB, removals are directly appealable. This provision represents a significant 

transformation in how agencies are required to respond to retaliators. Effective November 16, 2020, 

OPM issued implementing regulations that likely will have the effect of significantly increasing 

awareness of and compliance with these provisions throughout Government and increase 

appeals to MSPB.

Overall, it is probable that both the number and complexity of WPEA-related appeals and PFRs will 

continue to grow in the coming years, requiring additional resources to adjudicate them. 

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 (P.L. 114-328)

The NDAA for FY 2017 contained three provisions that have significantly affected MSPB by 

increasing appeals to the agency.

Section 512 provides limited appeal rights to dual status military technicians serving in the National 

Guard. This is a significant change in the law with respect to such employees, who previously had 

no such rights.

Section 1138 enacted the Administrative Leave Act of 2016 (codified as 5 U.S.C. § 6329b), which 

expands MSPB’s jurisdiction by adding to the possible grounds on which an employee might file an 

appeal. It makes placement on investigative leave for “not less than 70 workdays” a personnel action 

under the subsection 8 and 9 whistleblower protections of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b).
6

Section 1140 expanded MSPB’s jurisdiction in cases of voluntary separation during a personnel 

investigation. As codified in 5 U.S.C. § 3322, an employee who voluntarily resigns while under 

investigation is entitled to file an appeal with MSPB over the notation in their personnel file of an 

adverse finding resulting from the investigation. 

Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017

changed the requirements for appeals of adverse actions taken against VA employees. It lowers 

MSPB’s standard of proof for adjudication of VA adverse actions taken under 38 U.S.C. § 714 from 

preponderant to substantial evidence and requires a MSPB AJ to issue a decision on an appeal of 

such actions within 180 days. These changes to adjudicating § 714 cases influence the processing of 

all MSPB cases as schedules must shift to meet this statutory requirement. The law also effectively 

replaced the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 for VA Senior

Executive Service appeals. 

Section 714 eliminated MSPB’s authority to mitigate penalties. However, subsequent decisions of 

the Federal Circuit have found that MSPB must nonetheless review the legality of any agency 

penalty, including by applying the factors set forth in Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 

280, 305-06 (1981). See, e.g., Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1319, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 

2021). If MSPB finds the penalty is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the VA failed to 

consider the Douglas factors in determining the appropriate penalty, the case must be remanded to 

the VA for a redetermination of the penalty.

The Federal Circuit also found that the burden of proof to be applied by the VA when making its 

decision in an action taken under § 714 is preponderant evidence, not substantial evidence, 

necessitating reversal by MSPB when VA fails to apply the correct burden of proof. See Rodriguez v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1290, 1297-1301 (Fed. Cir. 2021). These two significant 

changes in the interpretation of a relatively new statute will likely result in many reversals and

remands of VA actions taken under § 714.

In addition, the Act contains a provision that is similar to the Government-wide requirement that 

discipline be proposed for supervisors found to have committed whistleblower retaliation and 

includes matters such as conducting a negative peer review, opening a retaliatory investigation, or 

taking a personnel action against an employee relating to participating in an audit or investigation by 

the Comptroller General, in addition to those listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302. Although not all VA cases 

are brought under this law, MSPB has seen an overall increase in the number of VA cases filed since 

the law took effect. 

Other External Factors Leading to Increased Appeals to MSPB

Executive Orders 14020 and 14035 

On June 25, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White 

House Gender Policy Council,” which establishes a policy to promote diversity and inclusion in the 

Federal workforce. On the same date, President Biden issued Executive Order 14035, “Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” which similarly seeks to attain a 

Federal workforce that reflects all segments of society. As a result, there could be an increase in 
7

affirmative defenses based on discrimination when appellants believe their agencies have not 

complied with the letter or intent of these Executive Orders.

Workload Resulting from Reorganizations

Some Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Postal Service, have announced or put into effect 

reorganization plans. Such changes will potentially cause furloughs, early retirement incentives 

(Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments), and the 

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

initial appeals and PFRs to MSPB.

Supreme Court Decision and Executive Actions Related to LGBTQ Employment Rights

In Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), the Supreme Court held that taking adverse 

employment actions against employees because of their sexual orientation or transgender status 

constitutes sex discrimination. Previously, discrimination based on either sexual orientation or 

transgender status had not universally been seen as a violation of Title VII. Separately, on January 

25, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13988, which requires that agencies promulgate 

agency actions (orders, regulations, policies, etc.) that prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender 

identity or sexual orientation.” Executive Order 13988 and the holding in Bostock open the door for 

the filing and adjudication of more appeals raising sex discrimination on those bases as affirmative 

defenses, thus expanding the range of issues MSPB will review in such appeals. 

Federal Circuit Decisions Related to Whistleblowing and Performance-based Actions

In Hessami v. MSPB, 979 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit made several rulings which 

increase the likelihood that whistleblowing appeals to MSPB will proceed to a hearing on the merits

of a claim. The court held that whether an appellant’s whistleblowing disclosure concerned

disputable policy matters does not preclude it from being protected because the WPEA is clear that 

“policy decisions and disclosable misconduct are not mutually exclusive.”

The court also held that in determining whether an appellant made a nonfrivolous jurisdictional 

allegation under the WPEA, the Board may not consider evidence introduced by the agency. 

Instead, it is limited to “evaluating whether the appellant has alleged sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” However, on January 19, 2022, the 

court issued Smolinski v. MSPB, F.4th, 2022 WL 164013 (Fed. Cir. 2022), which held that Hessami 

does not prohibit reliance on certain agency evidence supporting the appellant’s claim to jurisdiction. 

The conjunction of these two cases will likely require significant analysis by MSPB and the Federal 

Circuit in the coming months and may result in a higher number of remands from the court, if it 

determines that MSPB incorrectly interpreted the effect of these cases on whistleblower 

jurisdiction case law.

In Santos v. NASA, 990 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the Federal Circuit significantly expanded the 

potential scope of admissible evidence and discovery in performance-based actions taken under 5 

U.S.C. § 4302, holding that when an agency predicates removal on an employee’s failure to satisfy 

obligations imposed by a performance improvement period (PIP), the agency must further 

demonstrate that the employee’s performance justified imposing a PIP in the first instance. This will 

lead to more complex adjudication of performance-based actions before MSPB.
8

All of these decisions increase the number and complexity of hearings that are conducted in cases 

involving claims of whistleblowing, and those based on performance under 5 U.S.C. § 4302, and will

likely call for additional adjudication resources, including court reporter costs. 

Potential Workload Resulting from the COVID-19 Pandemic

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, telework was mandated for many Federal agency 

employees. Now that vaccines are widely available, Federal agencies are grappling with return-tooffice policies. OPM and other agencies have issued and are working on additional 

Government-wide guidance about workplace safety, reentry and post-reentry, the future of telework,

and other remote work flexibilities. It is likely that Federal expenditures related to the COVID-19 

pandemic will affect the budgets of Federal agencies into the future. While it is impossible to know 

for sure, agencies may face budget cuts or shortfalls, which may lead to RIFs or furloughs of agency 

employees. In addition, agencies have had to quickly develop new operational policies during the 

pandemic. The effect on employees of telework eligibility determinations, reentry and post-reentry 

plans and policies, safety and security protocols, accountability for health and safety behaviors, and 

sharing health-related information, for example, could affect merit-based management and the 

occurrence of PPPs. We may see an increase in whistleblowing (e.g., whistleblowing disclosures may 

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

for whistleblowing related to the pandemic. It is too early to know the degree to which the 

pandemic’s effects on the Federal workplace might increase appeals filed with MSPB; however, we 

have received appeals 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.

Workload Resulting from Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Agency (TSA) Expansion of 

Appeal Rights for Transportation Security Officers (TSOs)

In Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s June 3, 2021, 

memorandum supporting the TSA workforce through improving the TSO employment experience, 

the Secretary directed a review and evaluation of whether its current standards align with Title 5 

personnel protections. Expecting legislation that would provide MSPB appeal rights, TSA began to 

afford TSO screeners the same or similar appeal rights. On September 13, 2021, MSPB entered into 

a reimbursable agreement with TSA to adjudicate appeals under their newly established rights, 

pending legislation that would otherwise increase our non-reimbursable workload.

FY 2023 Budget Request

Appropriation Language 

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

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

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

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

elsewhere, hire of passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $2,000 for official reception and 

representation expenses, $51,139,000 to remain available until September 30, 2024, and in addition 

$2,345,000, to remain available until September 30, 2024, for administrative expenses to adjudicate 
9

retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in 

amounts to be determined by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. 

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Goals and Objectives 

MSPB’s FY 2023 Congressional Budget Justification is based on its Strategic Plan. The agency’s 

performance goals cover the critical components of two strategic goals, and the performance 

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

The strategic goals and objectives are: 

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

safeguarding the civil service from prohibited personnel practices. 

Strategic Objectives:

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

efficient adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes.

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

Regional and Field Offices, 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 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. 
10

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.

FY 2023 Request by Object Class 

MSPB is requesting $51,139,000 in FY 2023 appropriated funds for a total budget authority of

$53,484,000, which includes the OPM transfer of $2,345,000 from the Civil Service Retirement and 

Disability Fund. With this level of funding, MSPB will be adequately resourced for the long and 

difficult process of digging out of its case backlog, as well as working toward implementing 

the Administration’s priorities.

MSPB diligently examined its requirements. Personnel compensation and benefits constitute 82% of 

MSPB’s budgetary expenses. Approximately 7% of MSPB’s budget authority is for rent to the 

General Services Administration (GSA) for MSPB office spaces, leaving about 3% for services from 

other Government agencies (human resources, payroll, accounting, and ALJs), 3% for nongovernment services, 2% for communications and utilities, and about 3% on all other requirements 

(travel, printing, facilities maintenance, and general supplies). 

Personnel Compensation & Benefits – an increase of $5,314,000 

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

11 Personnel Compensation $28,173 $32,222 $4,049

12 Benefits $8,425 $9,690 $1,265

Personnel compensation and benefit expenses is the largest component of MSPB’s FY 2023 budget 

request. During previous budget cycles, MSPB was authorized 235 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees but was not funded to fully support the salaries and benefits of 235 FTEs. Moreover, 

MSPB’s budget levels remained constant for four years, and during that time there were several 

mandated pay raises. MSPB has prudently refrained from backfilling certain positions until the 

Board arrives and has sought other cost savings to accumulate carryover to offset these costs as well 

as some IT modernization efforts. 
11

Now with the quorum being restored, MSPB will have at least 10 FTEs to fund (for Board members 

and their support staffs) that it has not had to fund for the past several years. Additionally, having 

permanent political leadership will allow MSPB to hire for key operations positions it has not 

backfilled during the absence of a Board quorum, such as Senior Executive Service directors for its 

Office of Regional Operations (ORO) and OPE. Beyond that, fully addressing the PFR backlog will 

require funding MSPB at a level that can sustain its 235 authorized FTEs.

Travel & Transportation of Persons – no change 

 

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

21 Travel & Transportation 

of Persons $200 $200 $0

With the restoration of a quorum and anticipating the resumption of normal operations in the wake 

of the pandemic, MSPB will experience an increase in travel needs. Travel to support in-person 

hearings, mediations, training, outreach events, site visits, and interviews for studies, as well as

conferences will be required. Moreover, legislative changes have extended jurisdiction over appeals 

with whistleblower issues to all U.S. circuit courts, thereby requiring MSPB’s attorneys to

periodically travel to various Federal courts of appeals to represent the agency. This was rarely 

required before the enactment of the WPEA. 

Transportation of Things – a decrease of $9,000 

 

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

22 Transportation of Things $45 $36 ($9)

 

MSPB anticipates a cost savings in freight and courier services as the organization-wide laptop 

refresh is complete.
12

Rent, Communications, & Utilities – no change 

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

23 Rent, Communications & 

Utilities $4,810 $4,810 $0

These expenses include rent for MSPB’s HQ, regional and field office space, as well as utilities and 

telecommunication rentals. The telecommunication costs consist of IT infrastructure and software 

required to ensure MSPB employees can securely access Government applications and

communication services.

Printing – a decrease of $11,000 

 

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

24 Printing $75 $64 ($11)

MSPB utilizes the Government Publishing Office (GPO) for publishing in the Code of Federal 

Regulations, photocopy services, and the GPO Express program. MSPB anticipates a decline in 

printing costs as we increase electronic distribution. 

Other Contractual Services – an increase of $18,000 

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

25 Other Contractual Services $3,270 $3,288 $18

This category covers other services, goods and services from Government accounts, maintenance of 

facilities, and maintenance of equipment. MSPB annually renews interagency agreements with other 

Government agencies to obtain Government provided goods and services. This category funds 

accounting, purchasing, and travel services from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS), personnel 

services from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), and payroll services from USDA’s National Finance Center (NFC). Moreover, 

MSPB relies on the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Trade Commission for ALJ services.
13

Interagency agreements enable MSPB to pay for services as required, avoiding additional salary and 

benefit expenses in these areas of expertise. 

Additionally, there are other critical costs covered in this category. Court reporting services are 

required for adjudicating appeals and fluctuate depending on the complexity and length of hearings. 

Maintenance of equipment and software costs consist of annually recurring enterprise software 

renewals, network infrastructure, cyber security enhancements, and implementation 

of cloud-based technologies. 

 

Supplies & Materials – no change

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

26 Supplies & Materials $509 $509 $0

This category funds electronic subscriptions (e.g., Westlaw and legal research materials) which are 

critical to MSPB operations. In addition, general office supplies and IT peripheral devices are 

included in this category. 

Equipment – an increase of $2,000

 

MOC Description

FY 2022 

Enacted

(000)

FY 2023 

Request

(000)

Increase 

(decrease) 

over FY 2022

(000)

31 Equipment $318 $320 $2

MSPB replaces laptops, copiers, printers, scanners, and telecommunications equipment as it breaks 

down, is damaged, or reaches end of life. This category includes the cost for non-capitalized 

software needed by the organization for its statutory research and statistical analysis programs. In 

addition, the cost for hardcopy legal publications required to support adjudicatory decision-making 

is included in this category. 
14

Budget Schedule O - Object Classification (thousands of dollars)

FY 2021 

Actual

FY 2022 

Enacted

FY 2023 

Request Change

Direct Obligations:

Personnel Compensation $28,752 $28,173 $32,222 $4,049

Civilian Personnel Benefits 8,531 8,425 9,690 1,265

Travel of Persons 3 200 200 0

Transportation of Things 51 45 36 (9)

Rental payments to GSA 1,615 3,600 3,600 0

Rental Payments to Others 167 65 65 0

Communications, Utilities, and 

Miscellaneous Charges 406 1,145 1,145 0

Printing and Reproduction 20 75 64 (11)

Other Services 960 1,276 1,276 0

Other Purchases of Goods and Services 

from Government Accounts 2,015 1,650 1,650 0

Maintenance of Facilities 26 75 26 (49)

Maintenance of Equipment and 

Software 1,206 269 336 67

Supplies & Materials 135 509 509 0

Equipment/Lease Improvement 587 318 320 2

Direct Obligation. . . 44,474 45,825 51,139 5,314

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

Total New Obligations. . . 46,819 48,170 53,484 5,314
15

Budget Schedule Q - Employment Summary 

FY 2021 

Actual

FY 2022 

Enacted

FY 2023 

Request Change

Direct:

Civilian full-time equivalent employment 185 220 223 3

Reimbursable:

Civilian full-time equivalent employment 15 15 12 -3

Total... 200 235 235 0

Over the past three years, MSPB was authorized to staff up to 235 FTEs, which is the minimum 

staffing level required to execute the agency’s responsibilities with a quorum. Nevertheless, MSPB 

prudently maintained a relatively flat staffing plan of approximately 200 FTEs to sustain operations 

without a quorum. The relatively flat budget compelled MSPB to adapt and engage in tradeoffs of 

agency priorities to ensure the sustainment of effective and efficient operations. However, with the

Board’s arrival, we have started backfilling vacant positions with the anticipation of being fully 

staffed and funded in FY 2023 to concurrently support the mission, strategic goals, and priorities of 

the agency under a new Board. 

Conclusion

The merit system principles are designed to ensure fair treatment of employees, protect employees 

from misuse of authority, and ensure Federal employees are putting the public interest first. A 

Federal employee’s removal, suspension of more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, and 

allegations of whistleblower reprisal, among numerous other concerns, are appealable to the Board. 

Currently, there are at least 3,610 cases awaiting the new Board members that involve people who 

believe they have been unjustly treated in the Federal workplace or in other areas of MSPB’s 

jurisdiction. Some of these individuals and their families have been waiting for a verdict for over five

years. It is not an exaggeration to say the next two years will be MSPB’s most critical since its 

establishment in 1978. It faces unprecedented challenges in training new Board members and their 

staffs, and in reducing the backlog. In light of this, MSPB has taken the greatest care in assessing the 

resources it needs to truly succeed. MSPB respectfully requests Congress’s support of our FY 2023 

request.
16

About MSPB 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

successor to the CSC in its quasi-judicial capacity; OPM to serve as the President’s agent for Federal 

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

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

merit systems as the MSPs and defined the PPPs.

Board Organization 

The Board members are the Chair, Vice Chair, and Member. Board members are nominated by the 

President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve overlapping, non-renewable seven-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 before them. By statute, the Chair is the chief executive and 

administrative officer of MSPB. The office directors report to the Chair through the Executive 

Director. The agency has its HQ in Washington, D.C., with six regional and two field offices located 

throughout the United States in which AJs adjudicate cases at the initial appeal level, akin 

to a trial court.

Providing and Using Administrative Data for Statistical Purposes 

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

Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-14-06, “Guidance for Providing and Using 

Administrative Data for Statistical Purposes.” However, statistical data can be found in the Board’s 

Annual Reports available at www.mspb.gov. The Annual Report contains summaries of significant 

opinions issued by MSPB’s reviewing courts, case-processing data for initial appeals, and summaries 

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

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

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

the Board’s work. 

Adjudication 

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

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

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

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

under a variety of other laws, including the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.; the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3330a 
17

et seq.; the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), Pub. L. No. 101-12; the WPEA, Pub. L. No. 112-

199; the VA Accountability and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 115-

41; the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-73; and 

additional authorities listed in the regulation set out at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3. 

Other types of actions that may be appealed to the Board include performance-based removals or 

reductions in grade; denials of within-grade salary increases; RIF actions; suitability determinations; 

OPM employment practices (the development and use of examinations, qualification standards, 

tests, and other measurement instruments); denials of restoration or reemployment rights; and 

certain terminations of probationary employees.

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

jurisdiction. An AJ in the office ensures that the parties receive the procedures called for in the law 

and MSPB’s regulations and, after providing a full opportunity to develop the record on all relevant 

matters including a hearing when appropriate, issues an initial decision. Since March 2020, the 

regional and field offices have adjusted their processes and procedures to the virtual environment 

and have continued to adjudicate appeals. Unless a party files a PFR with the Board, the initial 

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

in Washington, D.C. to review the initial decision. When a PFR is filed, the Board’s decision on the 

PFR constitutes the final administrative decision on the appeal.

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

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

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

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

whistleblowing may be appealed to any of the U.S. circuit courts of appeals with 

competent jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

has reached compliance. 

In addition to adjudicating cases on the merits, MSPB also provides several ADR services to assist 

parties in resolving their cases. Use of these services is voluntary, provides the parties more control 

over the process, and can effectively resolve a case. In addition, resolving a case through ADR 

procedures can save time and reduce costs to the appellant, their agency, MSPB, and Governmentwide as compared to the more formal regulations and procedures involved with adjudication on the 

merits.
18

Mediation Appeals Program 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mediator, who plays no role in deciding the appeal, should they not reach an agreement. 

Importantly, because almost all mediations occur near the beginning of adjudication, MAP saves 

time and money for the Federal employees and agencies who resolve their cases 

through this process. 

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

greater number of cases that have been mediated almost every year since the program’s inception. 

Further, MAP mediators have successfully settled more than half of the appeals referred to 

mediation. Moreover, even when the case is resolved by an AJ’s decision, the mediation process 

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

When mediators were asking parties to complete evaluations at the end of each mediation, more 

than 95% stated they would use MAP again. The MAP program was negatively impacted by a 

November 2020 OPM regulation barring “clean record” settlement agreements (implementing 

previously revoked Executive Order 13839). While mediators continued to settle a substantial 

portion of the lower number of appeals referred to MAP, greater time and effort was expended by 

the mediator and the parties, and the number and percentage of successful settlements decreased. 

On January 4, 2022, OPM announced its proposed revocation of the 2020 regulations barring clean 

record settlements. It is unclear when the revocation will take effect. 

Merit Systems Studies and OPM Oversight 

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

systems in the executive branch and submit the resulting reports to the President and Congress. The 

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

professional workforce managed under the MSPs and free from PPPs. The studies are based on 

objective, independent research that assesses and evaluates Federal merit system policies, operations, 

and practice from a long-term perspective. This function, in conjunction with the agency’s 

adjudication of individual appeals and authority to review OPM regulations, ensures that the Board 

has the full legal authority necessary to oversee Federal merit systems at the systemic level and to 

remedy PPPs on an individual level. MSPB studies address the variety of challenges facing the 

Federal Government in managing its workforce. 
19

Publications Issued between FY 2021 – FY 2022 

No study reports have been transmitted to the President and Congress since the loss of quorum in 

January 2017. However, in addition to regular editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter, MSPB’s OPE 

issued the following non-study report publications in the past few years: 

Confidence in Ability to Perform Successfully (September 2021) discusses how organizations respond to 

unforeseen challenges and opportunities and are greatly influenced by how individual Federal 

workers think about the consequences of their own actions.

Agency Leader Responsibilities Related to Prohibited Personnel Practices (May 2021) discusses selected 

responsibilities assigned to the heads of Federal agencies by civil service law, such as to promote 

the prevention of PPPs, to protect whistleblowers, and to be accountable for proper exercise of 

personal authority. The brief places these responsibilities in the context of the broader goal of a 

merit-based civil service and outlines the extent to which they can—and in some cases 

cannot be delegated. 

Determining an Acceptable Level of Competence for Step Increases (April 2021) reviews data and practices 

related to the within grade increase (WGI), a periodic fixed-pay increase that is granted provided 

that the employee performs at “an acceptable level of competence.” This research brief explores 

factors that are important to the WGI process, the role of the WGI in addressing underperformance, and some lessons learned for agencies to consider.

Direct-Hire Authority Under 5 U.S.C. § 3304: Usage and Outcomes (February 2021) discusses Federal 

agency use of direct hire authorities (DHAs): streamlined procedures to appoint new employees 

without regard to selected merit system and public policy provisions, including ranking and 

veterans’ preference. This research brief then looks more closely at the DHA covered under 5 

U.S.C. § 3304(a)(3) which is approved and overseen by OPM. As discussed, although agencies 

believe that section 3304 DHAs are useful, their vision of the authority’s purpose and use 

appears to differ from OPM’s.

The Importance of Job Fit for Federal Agencies and Employees (October 2020) draws on professional 

literature and selected items from the 2016 MPS to describe three distinct ways employees may 

fit with their job; discusses how job fit relates to workplace outcomes, such as job satisfaction, 

employee engagement, performance appraisal ratings, and intention to leave; and to outline 

actions in areas such as job design, hiring, training, and performance management that might 

help Federal managers and employees improve job fit.

Other Studies Activity

OPE has prepared an updated research agenda for review and approval by incoming agency 

leadership and it concluded administering the 2021 MPS in April 2021. This MPS focused on a small 

set of core topics, anticipating that subsequent surveys will cover topics from a finalized research 

agenda. Publications based on the 2021 MPS are in progress. MSPB notes that the COVID-19 

pandemic may affect both research (e.g., the ability to conduct field work) and findings (e.g., 

working conditions and employee perceptions of leadership effectiveness and integrity).
20

Information Technology 

MSPB’s Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) designs, develops, implements, and 

maintains the agency’s IT infrastructure, systems, and cybersecurity program. IRM's mission is to 

support the efficient and cost-effective use of IT at MSPB. The long-term vision is to migrate all 

MSPB business systems to a cloud-based architecture. IRM provides technical and operational 

support to MSPB to guarantee IT efficiency, effectiveness, compliance, and cybersecurity to enable 

the agency’s mission. 

Human Resources 

MSPB contracts with USDA’s APHIS for selected HR administrative and operational services 

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

monitored within MSPB’s Office of Financial and Administrative Management.

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

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

health services to all its employees throughout the country. In addition, the agency contracts with 

FOH to offer all employees access to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The EAP assists 

agency employees by providing both prevention and intervention for employee problems, which 

ultimately improves employee health and functioning, as well as workplace performance. MSPB’s 

agreement with FOH provides for a comprehensive EAP, delivering short-term, problem-focused 

counseling and a variety of services. While many health and wellness activities and accommodations 

are not equally available to each employee with respect to workplace or onsite availability of services, 

the agency does strive to ensure that each employee understands that it fully supports a healthy and 

safe workplace for all employees. 

Additionally, MSPB will engage in robust strategic human capital planning efforts. It is of the utmost 

importance to MSPB leadership that the agency hires and retains a diverse and highly qualified legal, 

research, analytical, and administrative workforce to support MSPB’s mission now and in the future. 

Financial Management 

MSPB has initiated cross-servicing agreements with the Treasury Department’s BFS for its 

accounting, financial auditing, purchasing, and travel-related services and support. Since 2002, BFS 

has processed MSPB’s administrative payments and prepared its accounting reports. The Board has 

received unqualified/unmodified opinions on its audits since the agency has been subject to audits 

of its financial statements. 

In addition to the agreement in place for personnel services, MSPB contracts with USDA’s NFC for 

processing payroll and payroll-related activities including earnings and leave statements, W-2 

information, and debt management. The cross-servicing relationships with these organizations have 

provided MSPB with timely responses and more accurate processing of information from larger 

pools of knowledgeable staff than would be possible with a smaller in-house staff alone. BFS, 

APHIS, and NFC have the resources to stay current with the latest technologies, so they can provide 

these services more efficiently and economically.
21

Equal Employment Opportunity 

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

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

supervisors about these programs and initiatives, oversees diversity and inclusion initiatives, and 

provides all employees training on rights and remedies available under the anti-discrimination laws 

and whistleblower protection laws. OEEO provides equal employment opportunity counseling, 

formal complaint processing, and alternative dispute resolution services to current and former 

employees, as well as applicants who allege discrimination. OEEO evaluates and reports MSPB’s 

complaint data to Congress, EEOC, OPM, and other external stakeholders, and workforce 

demographics by occupation and grade to the EEOC. The EEO Director also coordinates MSPB’s 

Diversity and Inclusion Council. 
22

Organization Chart 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Raymond Limon

Vice Chairman 

Chairman 

vacant 

Jan. 2017 - present

Tristan Leavitt

Member 

Administrative Executive Director

Law Judge

Policy and 

Evaluation 

Appeals 

Counsel

Clerk of the 

Board

General 

Counsel

Financial and 

Administrative 

Management

Information 

Resources 

Management

Regional 

Operations

Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

Regional Offices

Atlanta, Chicago, 

Dallas, Philadelphia,

Oakland, Washington, 

D.C.

HR support services are provided by 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. 

The functions of the ALJ are performed by ALJs employed by the Federal Trade Commission

and the U.S. Coast Guard under reimbursable interagency agreements.

Field Offices 

Denver 

New York
23

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADR Alternate Dispute Resolution 

AJ Administrative Judge

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BFS Bureau of Fiscal Services

CSC Civil Service Commission

CSRA Civil Service Reform Act of 1978

DHA Direct Hire Authority

EAP Employee Assistance Program 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

EO Executive Order

FedRAMP Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program 

FOH Federal Occupational Health

FTE Full Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

GPO Government Publishing Office

GSA General Services Administration 

HQ Headquarters

HR Human Resources

IRM Information Resource Management

IT Information Technology

MAP Mediation Appeals Program

MPS Merit Principles Survey

MSPs Merit System Principles
24

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act 

NFC National Finance Center

OAC Office of Appeals Counsel

OEEO Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE Office of Policy and Evaluation

OPM Office of Personnel Management

ORO Office of Regional Operations

OSC Office of Special Counsel

PFR Petitions for Review

PIP Performance Improvement Plan

PPPs Prohibited Personnel Practices

RIF Reduction in Force

TSA Transportation Security Agency

TSO Transportation Security Officers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veteran Affairs

WGI Within Grade Increase

WPA Whistleblower Protection Act

WPEA Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act