§

Annual Performance Report 

for 

FY 2020

and

Annual Performance Plan

for

FY 2021 (Final) & FY 2022 (Proposed)

May 28, 2021
ii MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020-2022 May 28, 2021

This page intentionally left blank.
iii MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020-2022 May 28, 2021

Table of Contents

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

Summary of FY 2020 Results...................................................................................................................... 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................................................................................................ 5

Mission............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Vision .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Organizational Values................................................................................................................................... 5

Strategic Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................... 6

Management Objectives............................................................................................................................... 6

Tabular Summary of Current Progress and Annual Performance Plan.................................... 7

Table 1: Summary of MSPB FY 2020 Results.......................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Summary of MSPB FYs 2021 (Final) – 2022 (Proposed) Performance Plans...................... 9

Comprehensive Performance Results and Plans .................................................................... 11

Strategic Goal 1............................................................................................................................................11

Strategic Goal 2............................................................................................................................................19

Management Objectives.............................................................................................................................27

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish MSPB’s Objectives ........................................ 33

Strategic Goal 1............................................................................................................................................33

Strategic Goal 2............................................................................................................................................35

Management Objectives.............................................................................................................................36

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance ............................................... 39

Internal Management Challenges..............................................................................................................39

Significant External Trends and Issues....................................................................................................41

Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement ............................................................ 44

Program Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................44

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2020 ..................................................................................... 47

Appendix B: Information Required under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(i)(1) and (2) ................................ 52

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report ................................... 53

Appendix D: More Information about MSPB ......................................................................... 55

List of Common Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................... 60
iv MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020-2022 May 28, 2021

This page intentionally left blank.
v MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020-2022 May 28, 2021

Foreword

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

Annual Performance Plan (APR-APP) for fiscal years (FYs) 2020-2022, which combines the Annual 

Performance Report for FY 2020 with the Annual Performance Plan for FY 2021 (Final) – FY 2022 

(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. Except as noted, the

FY 2020 results contained here were published in January 2021 in a standalone APR. 

Since January 8, 2017, MSPB has lacked a quorum of Board members, and since March 1, 2019, 

has not had any presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Board members. This has prevented 

MSPB from issuing decisions on petitions for review (PFRs) and other cases at headquarters, and from 

issuing reports of merit systems studies. Despite these restrictions, MSPB has continued to carry out its

functions to the maximum extent possible, including adjudication of initial appeals in its regional and field 

offices. Details of 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 and prohibited personnel practices. The APR-APP compares annual 

performance results for FY 2020 to performance targets defined in February 2020, and includes

prior year results for comparative purposes. It also contains: final goals, measures, and targets for 

FY 2021 and proposed goals, measures, and targets for FY 2022, along with explanatory information 

on changes; an overall summary of the external trends and internal management challenges that have 

affected or may continue to 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 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1206. MSPB’s APRs, 

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

We invite 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 FYs 2020-2022 May 28, 2021

This page intentionally left blank.
1 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

APR-APP for FYs 2020 – 2022

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 FYs 2020-2024. It also includes final FY 2020 performance results and performance targets for 

FY 2021 (final) and for FY 2022 (proposed). MSPB adjusted the FY 2021 targets from those contained 

in the FY 2021 APP published in the spring of 2020 based on changes in external and internal factors. 

The goals and targets for FYs 2021 and 2022 are in line with MSPB’s enacted budget for FY 2021 and 

its proposed budget for FY 2022.1 Except as noted, the FY 2020 performance results were also 

contained as the FY 2020 APR published in January 2021. 

Summary of FY 2020 Results

In FY 2020, MSPB exceeded two, met three, partially met three, did not meet one, and did not rate two

of its 11 strategic and management objectives. MSPB exceeded eight, met ten, did not meet two, and 

did not rate five of its 25 performance goals (PGs).2 The lack of quorum impeded MSPB’s setting 

targets for or rating four PGs. The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic affected the agency’s 

ability to achieve its outreach goal (and objective) and likely the achievement of the website visits goal. 

MSPB postponed identifying a new goal and measure for budgeting and financial management. 

Detailed results and plans for all of MSPB’s objectives and PGs are contained in the section on 

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.3 Over time, this practice contributed to an unstable 

Government workforce lacking the necessary qualifications to perform its work, which in turn 

adversely affected the efficiency and effectiveness of the Government and its ability to serve the 

American people. 

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 the Executive 

Order (EO) 13576 on 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 the GPRAMA, (Pub. L. 111-352 § 1125).

2 This summary has been edited to account for the addition of engagement results from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. 

Therefore, this summary is different than the summary included in the APR published in January 2021.

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

Vol. 4, 2010, pages 109-110. 
2 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 that a stable, highly qualified Federal workforce, free from partisan 

political pressure, was available to provide capable and effective service to the American people.

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

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

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

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

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

successor to the Commission;5 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as the President’s agent for 

Federal workforce policy and procedure; and the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) 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

MSPB has been without a quorum of Board members since January 8, 2017, and without any 

presidentially appointed Senate-confirmed Board members since March 1, 2019. Since that time, MSPB 

has continued to operate in accordance with its continuity of operations plan (COOP). Under the 

COOP, MSPB’s General Counsel serves as the agency’s Acting Chief Executive and Administrative 

Officer. The lack of quorum has created a backlog of PFRs and other cases at headquarters (HQ) 

awaiting Board decisions. As of the end of FY 2020, MSPB had a total of 2,942 cases pending at HQ. 

As of the end of April 2021, this number had grown to 3,241 pending cases. The lack of quorum also 

prevents MSPB from releasing reports of merit systems studies, promulgating substantive regulations to 

accompany congressional changes in its jurisdiction or processes, and affects the review of OPM 

significant actions. Nonetheless, administrative judges (AJs) in the regional and field offices (ROs/FOs) 

continue to receive initial appeals, conduct hearings, and issue initial decisions. MSPB HQ continues to 

receive PFRs and to draft proposed PFR decisions for consideration by Board members upon their 

arrival. MSPB continues to conduct research and has drafted a new research agenda for review by the 

Board once a quorum is restored. The agency’s executive, financial, and administrative operations 

continue to function. As a result, MSPB continues to perform its critical mission during this 

prolonged transition. 

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 April 28, 2021, the White House announced 

President Biden’s intent to nominate Cathy A. Harris as Chair of MSPB. We hope the Biden 

administration and the Senate will ensure the Board’s quorum is restored in 2021.

4 Ibid. page 113. 

5 Ibid. page 114. 
3 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 (FAM), General 

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

Operations (ORO). The EEO Director reports directly to the Chairman, and the directors of the other

offices report to the Chairman through the Executive Director. MSPB also has six ROs and two FOs 

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

Director. The agency is authorized 235 full-time equivalent employees to conduct and support its 

statutory duties. Federal agencies also perform many support functions for MSPB through 

interagency agreements. 

Summary of Changes in this APR-APP

Except as noted, this document contains the same final FY 2020 performance results as those in our 

FY 2020 APR published in January 2021. This APR-APP makes clear that FY 2021 and FY 2022 

targets for the PGs related to quality of initial appeals, PFR processing, enforcement case processing, 

and requests to review OPM regulations cannot be defined until a new Board is seated. We have 

updated PGs and targets for FY 2021 based on external and internal factors. Beginning in FY 2021, 

MSPB added a performance goal related to cybersecurity, combined the PGs related to disseminating 

information for policymakers and posting information and materials for educational purposes, and 

eliminated the website visits performance goal. The performance framework, the tabular summary of 

the FY 2021 and FY 2022 performance plan, and the Means and Strategies sections have been updated 

to reflect these changes. The Comprehensive Results and Plans section uses the FY 2020 performance 

objectives and includes explanations for the FY 2021 changes. Many FY 2022 targets are to be 

determined (TBD) based on results achieved in FY 2021. We also updated the external factors section 

to include the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Linking this Plan to Other Agency Documents 

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 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

This page intentionally left blank.
5 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

MSPB Performance Framework 

Mission

Vision

Organizational Values

Protect the merit system principles and promote an effective Federal workforce 

free of prohibited personnel practices.

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

providing excellent service to the American people.

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 the Office of Personnel 

Management. We will interact with our customers and stakeholders in a 

professional, respectful, and courteous manner. We will strive to be a model 

merit-based organization by applying the lessons we learn in our work to the 

internal management of MSPB.

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

inclusive in considering the various perspectives and interests of stakeholders in 

our work and in our external and internal interactions with individuals 

and organizations. 

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

targets. We will issue timely reports on the findings and recommendations of our 

merit systems studies. We will respond promptly to inquiries from customers 

and stakeholders.

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

communicate with our customers and stakeholders using clear language, and 

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.
6 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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. 

 1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions. 

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

capital management issues. 

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

Management, as appropriate. 

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

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

practices. 

Strategic Objectives:

 2A: MSPB’s work is referenced by a variety of policy-related, educational, professional, or media 

sources. 

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

workplace through successful outreach. 

 2C: Advance the understanding of merit, the MSPs, and the PPPs by developing and sharing 

informational and educational materials and guidance. 

Management Objectives

Management Objectives: Effectively and Efficiently . . .

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. 

M2: Develop budgets and manage financial resources to ensure necessary resources now and in the 

future. 

M3: Improve and maintain information technology and information services programs to support 

agency mission and administrative functions. 

M4: Modernize core business applications to achieve electronic adjudication and provide a web-based 

survey capability. 
7 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Tabular Summary of Current Progress and Annual Performance Plan6 

Table 1: Summary of MSPB FY 2020 Results 

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

civil service from prohibited personnel practices.

Strategic Obj. 1A: Provide understandable, high-quality resolution of 

appeals, supported by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes. Partially Met

Performance Goal Performance Measure FY 2020 Target FY 2020 Results

1A-1: Quality of initial decisions Percent initial decisions reversed/remanded 

on PFR due to AJ error/oversight

No target set, 

no quorum 

No target set, no 

quorum (Not Rated)

1A-2: Quality of decisions reviewed by 

reviewing authority

Percent decisions unchanged by the 

reviewing court 92% or more 94% (Exceeded)

1A-3: Participant perceptions of the 

adjudication process Percent participant agreement 

Continue surveys, plan 

survey changes to account 

for new apps

Surveys ongoing (Met)

1A-4: Initial appeals processing timeliness Average processing time 120 days or fewer 102 days (Exceeded)

1A-5: PFR processing timeliness Average processing time No target set, 

no quorum

No target set, no 

quorum (Not Rated)

1A-6: Participant perceptions of the ADR 

process Percent participant agreement 

Continue surveys, plan 

survey changes to account 

for new apps

Surveys ongoing (Met)

Strategic Obj. 1B: Enforce timely compliance with MSPB decisions. Not Rated

1B-1: Compliance case processing 

timeliness 

Weighted average processing time for all 

compliance cases 

No target set, 

no quorum

No target set, no 

quorum (Not Rated)

Strategic Obj. 1C: Conduct objective, timely studies of the Federal merit 

systems and Federal human capital (HC) management issues. Met

1C-1: Number/scope of Issues of Merit 

(IoM) newsletter editions or other articles 

Number/scope of published newsletter 

editions and other articles Publish 3 IoM editions Published 3 IoM eds.

on 8 of 9 MSPs (Met)

1C-2: Number/scope of study reports, 

briefs, or other documents

Number/scope of reports, briefs, and other 

documents published 

Prepare to publish 4 or 

more study reports or 

other docs

See Comprehensive 

Results (Met)

1C-3: Conduct surveys of Federal 

employees to assess and report on the 

health of merit systems 

Conduct/analyze periodic surveys of Federal 

employees 

Design/implement 

Gov’t-wide survey in JulyDec 2020

See Comprehensive 

Results (Met)

Strategic Obj. 1D: Review and act upon the rules, regulations, and 

significant actions of OPM, as appropriate. Partially Met

1D-1: Review OPM rules/regulations Number/scope of decisions issued involving 

OPM regulations

No target set, 

no quorum

No target set, no 

quorum (Not Rated)

1D-2: Review OPM significant actions Number/scope of OPM significant actions 

reviewed

Maintain scope; publish 

review of OPM 

significant actions 

Review of OPM 

significant actions in 

2019 AR (Met)

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 Obj. 2A: Inform, promote, and/or encourage actions by 

policymakers, as appropriate, that strengthen Federal merit systems laws 

and regulations.

Met

2A-1: References to MSPB’s work Scope of references to MSPB’s work Maintain scope 453 references in 119

sources (Met)

2A-2: Create policy-related products Number/scope of policy-related products 

3 products focused on 

policy or intended for 

policymakers

See Comprehensive 

Results (Exceeded)

6 The summary results table in the FY 2020 APR differs from this table. This table contains FY 2020 engagement results for 

PG M1-3, and the ratings for achievement for the M1-3 PG and M1 objective were adjusted to include that result. 
8 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Table 1 (Cont.): Summary of MSPB FY 2020 Results

Strategic Goal 2: Continued

Strategic Obj. 2B: Support and improve the practice of merit, adherence to 

MSPs, and prevention of PPPs in the workplace through 

successful outreach.

Not Met

Performance Goal Performance Measure FY 2020 Target FY 2020 Results

2B-1: Conduct merit-based outreach 

events

Number/scope of merit-based outreach 

events

Conduct 100 events 

or more 76 events (Not Met)

Strategic Obj. 2C: Advance the understanding of the concept of merit, 

MSPs, and PPPs through the use of educational standards, materials and 

guidance established by MSPB.

Partially Met

2C-1: Number/scope of materials 

accessed on the website Number of visits to the MSPB website Within ± 5% of previous year

1,499,747 visits

(Not Met)

2C-2: Create/update educational materials 

accessible on website 

Number/type of new or updated educational 

materials posted 

Post 5 or more 

educational materials

See Comprehensive 

Results (Exceeded)

Management Obj. 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.

Exceeded

M1-1: Ensure workforce competencies

Average percent agreement on Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

competency questions

70% or higher 80% (Exceeded) 

M1-2: Maintain perceptions of diversity 

(div.) and inclusion (incl.) 

Average percent agreement on FEVS div. 

and Internal Survey (IS) incl. questions

Div. 70% or higher

Incl. 70% or higher

Div. 75% (Met)

Incl. 83% (Exceeded)

M1-3: Maintain employee engagement Average percent agreement on FEVS 

engagement questions 70% or higher 80% (Exceeded) 

Management Obj. M2: Develop budgets and manage financial resources to 

ensure necessary resources now and in the future. Not Rated

M2-1: Ensure justified budgets and 

resource accountability New measure to be defined in FY 2020

Identify new measure for 

budget & financial 

performance

Postponed

(Not Rated)

Management Obj. M3: Improve and maintain information technology and 

information services programs to support agency mission and administrative 

functions.

Exceeded

M3-1: Ensure available/reliable 

information technology (IT) infrastructure 

and applications 

Average percent agreement on relevant IS 

questions, ensure disaster recovery capability 65% or higher 79% (Exceeded)

M3-2: Ensure satisfaction with internal IT 

support

Average percent agreement on relevant IS 

questions 65% or higher 80% (Exceeded)

Management Obj. M4: Modernize core business applications to achieve 

electronic adjudication and provide a web-based survey capability. Met

M4-1: Improve adjudication processing 

efficiency 

Modernize core adjudication business 

applications; proportion of cases processed 

entirely electronically

Substantially develop 

new core applications

See Comprehensive 

Results (Met)

M4-2: Improve agency survey capability Ensure secure, web-based survey application 

(in conjunction with 1C-3)

Fully implement a 

FedRAMP certified, 

web-based survey 

capability

See Comprehensive 

Results (Met)
9 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Table 2: Summary of MSPB FYs 2021 (Final) – 2022 (Proposed) Performance Plans

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

civil service from prohibited personnel practices.

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

efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

Performance Goal Performance Measure FY 2021 Target 

(Final)

FY 2022 Target

(Proposed)

1A-1: Quality of initial decisions Percent initial decisions reversed/remanded 

on PFR due to AJ error/oversight

No target set, 

no quorum 

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results 

1A-2: Quality of decisions reviewed by 

reviewing authority

Percent decisions unchanged by the reviewing 

court 92% or more 92% or more

1A-3: Participant perceptions of the 

adjudication process Percent participant agreement 

Continue surveys, plan 

survey changes to account 

for new apps

Continue surveys, 

adjusted for new 

applications

1A-4: Initial appeals processing timeliness Average processing time 120 days or fewer 120 days or fewer

1A-5: PFR processing timeliness Average processing time No target set, 

no quorum

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

1A-6: Participant perceptions of the ADR 

process Percent participant agreement 

Continue surveys, plan 

survey changes to account 

for new apps

Continue surveys, 

adjusted for new 

applications

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

1B-1: Compliance case processing 

timeliness 

Weighted average processing time for all 

compliance cases 

No target set, 

no quorum

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

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

capital management issues.

1C-1: Number/scope of IoM newsletter 

editions or other articles 

Number/scope of published newsletter 

editions and other articles Publish 3 IoM editions Publish 3 IoM editions 

1C-2: Number/scope of study reports, 

briefs, or other documents

Number/scope of reports, briefs, and other 

documents published 

Prepare to publish 3 or 

more study documents

Prepare to publish 4 or 

more study documents

1C-3: Conduct surveys of Federal 

employees to assess and report on the 

health of merit systems 

Conduct/analyze periodic surveys of Federal 

employees 

Implement Gov’t-wide 

survey in 2nd Quarter 

FY 2021

Design or implement 

Gov’t-wide or focused 

study survey

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

as appropriate. 

1D-1: Review OPM rules/regulations Number/scope of decisions issued involving 

OPM regulations

No target set, 

no quorum

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

1D-2: Review OPM significant actions Number/scope of OPM significant actions 

reviewed

Maintain scope; publish 

review of OPM 

significant actions 

Maintain scope; publish 

review of OPM significant 

actions 

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 Obj. 2A: MSPB’s work is referenced by a variety of policy-related, educational, professional, 

or media sources. 

2A-1: References to MSPB’s work Scope of references to MSPB’s work Maintain scope Maintain scope
10 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Table 2 (Cont.) Summary of MSPB FYs 2021 (Final) – 2022 (Proposed) Performance Plans

Strategic Goal 2: Continued

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

PPPs in the workplace through successful outreach.

Performance Goal Performance Measure FY 2021 Target 

(Final)

FY 2022 Target 

(Proposed)

2B-1: Conduct merit-based outreach 

events

Number/scope of merit-based outreach 

events

Conduct 60 or more 

outreach events

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

Strategic Obj. 2C: Advance the understanding of merit, the MSPs, and the PPPs by developing and 

sharing informational and educational materials and guidance. 

2C-1: Maintain number and scope of 

available informational and educational 

materials and guidance. 

Number of new or updated informational or 

educational documents made available 

electronically or on MSPB’s website.

Post 8 or more 

informational or 

educational items

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

Management Obj. 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.

M1-1: Ensure workforce competencies Average percent agreement on FEVS 

competency questions 70% or higher 70% or higher

M1-2: Maintain perceptions of diversity 

(div.) and inclusion (incl.) 

Average percent agreement on FEVS div. 

and IS incl. questions

Div. 70% or higher

Incl. 70% or higher 

Div. 70% or higher

Incl. 70% or higher 

M1-3: Maintain employee engagement Average percent agreement on FEVS 

engagement questions 70% or higher 70% or higher 

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

resources now and in the future.

M2-1: Ensure justified budgets and 

resource accountability New goal/measure to be defined in FY 2021 

Consider new goal & 

measure when quorum 

restored

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

Management Obj. M3: Improve and maintain information technology and information services programs 

to support agency mission and administrative functions.

M3-1: Ensure available/reliable IT 

infrastructure and applications 

Average percent agreement on relevant IS 

questions, ensure disaster recovery capability 70% or higher TBD based on FY 2021 results

M3-2: Ensure satisfaction with internal 

IT support

Average percent agreement on relevant 

IS questions 70% or higher TBD based on FY 2021 results

M3-3: Continuously enhance

cybersecurity New goal/measure to be defined in FY 2021

Finalize goal statement 

& define measure for 

tracking cybersecurity 

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

Management Obj. M4: Modernize core business applications to achieve electronic adjudication and 

provide a web-based survey capability. 

M4-1: Improve adjudication processing 

efficiency 

Modernize core adjudication business 

applications; proportion of cases processed 

entirely electronically

Deliver roadmap for

IT modernization

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results

M4-2: Improve agency survey capability Ensure secure, web-based survey application 

(in conjunction with 1C-3)

Support successful 

implementation of 

Gov’t-wide survey

TBD based on 

FY 2021 results
11 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Comprehensive Performance Results and Plans

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

safeguarding the civil service from prohibited personnel practices. 

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

efficient adjudication and ADR processes. 

Results indicate this objective was Partially Met. MSPB exceeded its targets for average processing 

time for initial appeals and for cases left unchanged by the court. It achieved its targets for conducting 

surveys of adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) customers. Because MSPB began 

FY 2020 without a quorum of Board members, we did not set targets or rate results 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 2020, it continued to process cases at HQ and prepare draft 

decisions in PFR and original jurisdiction cases for review by new Board members when they arrive. As 

of the end of FY 2020, 2,942 PFR cases were pending at HQ. MSPB closed 18 PFR cases by order of 

the Clerk of the Board under the 2018 policy regarding withdrawal of PFRs. As these cases were not 

closed by a Board decision, they are not included in PFR processing assessments. 

MSPB began FY 2021 without a quorum and again did not set targets for quality of initial appeals and 

PFR processing time. The FY 2022 targets are TBD based on FY 2021 results. The FY 2021 and 

FY 2022 targets for decisions left unchanged by the Court and for initial appeals processing time are 

the same as for FY 2020. The FY 2021 targets to survey initial appeal and ADR customers are to 

continue surveys and consider changes to the surveys after implementing the new core business 

applications. The FY 2022 targets for the initial appeals and ADR customer survey goals are to 

continue surveys and make changes as appropriate. 

Performance Goal 1A-1: Maintain quality of initial decisions.

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

or oversight.

Results Targets

FY 2014 7% FY 2020 No target set, no quorum. 

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

FY 2016 5% FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. 

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

Results Targets

FY 2014 96% FY 2020 92% or more

FY 2015 96% FY 2021 92% or more

FY 2016 94% FY 2022 92% or more
12 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2017 94% 

FY 2018 92% 

FY 2019 86% 

FY 2020 94% 

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

adjudication process.

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

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

Results Targets

FY 2014

Department of Interior (DOI) 

National Business Center (NBC) 

published a request for information 

(RFI) to assess survey technology 

availability and drafted a request for 

quote (RFQ) to be issued to several 

cloud service providers. 

FY 2020

Continue automated customer service 

and customer satisfaction survey, 

consider results, and take appropriate 

action to address issues. Consider

changes to customer surveys, as

appropriate, in response to 

implementation of new applications. 

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

Continue automated and updated 

customer service and customer 

satisfaction surveys, consider results, 

and take appropriate action to address 

issues.

FY 2017 Implemented automated survey 

process and began data collection.

FY 2018 Automated survey process ongoing. 

FY 2019 Surveys ongoing. 

FY 2020 Surveys ongoing. 

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

Measure: Average case processing time for initial appeals.

Results Targets

FY 2014 262 days* FY 2020 120 days or fewer. 

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 2018 102 days

FY 2019 105 days 

FY 2020 102 days 

* A weighted average including all initial appeals closed.
13 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 2014 70% (5,212/7,480)

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) 

Performance Goal 1A-5: Maintain processing timeliness for PFRs.

Measure: Average case processing time for PFRs of initial appeals. 

Results Targets

FY 2014 287 days* FY 2020 No target set, no quorum.

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

FY 2016 185 days FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. 

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

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

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

* 20 PFR cases were delayed awaiting the decisions issued by the CAFC related to Conyers and Gargiulo. If 

those cases are removed from the calculations, the average processing time was 279 days.

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

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 2014

DOI’s NBC published an RFI to assess 

availability and drafted a RFQ for 

issuance to several cloud 

service providers.

FY 2020

Continue automated customer service 

and customer satisfaction survey, 

consider results, and take appropriate 

action to address issues. Consider 

changes to customer surveys, as

appropriate, in response to 

implementation of new applications.

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

Continue automated and updated 

customer service and customer 

satisfaction survey, consider results, and 

take appropriate action to address 

issues.

FY 2017 Implemented automated survey process 

and began data collection.

FY 2018 Automated survey process ongoing. 

FY 2019 Surveys ongoing. 

FY 2020 Surveys ongoing. 
14 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

This objective was Not Rated. No FY 2020 target was set for this goal because MSPB began the year 

without a quorum of Board members. While MSPB continued to process compliance cases at HQ and 

in the regional and field offices, the lack of quorum meant that the agency was unable to release 

decisions in compliance/enforcement cases at HQ. Thus, MSPB did not rate this objective and goal. 

However, it is useful to note that in FY 2020, the regional and field offices continued to process 

compliance cases and issued 90 compliance decisions with an average processing time of 94 days. 

The FY 2021 target is not set because MSPB began the year without a quorum. The FY 2022 target is 

TBD based on FY 2021 results. 

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

Measure: Weighted average processing time for all enforcement cases.

Results Targets

FY 2014 215 days FY 2020 No target set, no quorum.

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

FY 2016 159 days FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

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

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

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

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

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

human capital management issues. 

Results indicate this objective was Met. MSPB achieved its targets for newsletters and other articles by 

publishing three Issues of Merit (IoM) newsletter editions covering eight of the nine MSPs. Newsletter 

articles included topics such as managing in difficult times; employee resilience; the Federal human 

resources (HR) workforce; recruiting in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (or STEM) 

occupations; hiring; performance management; performance confidence; pay; and settlement 

agreements. MSPB achieved its target for publication of additional briefs or articles by preparing for or 

publishing articles or briefs on: the state of the Federal HR workforce, the importance of job fit for 

agencies and employees, sexual harassment in the Federal workplace, and the new research agenda for 

merit systems studies. MSPB met its target for conducting surveys by completing development of the 

content for the next merit principles survey (MPS) and acquisition of the Qualtrics survey platform. 

Administration of the MPS was postponed until FY 2021 due to the two delays in OPM’s FEVS: from 

May 2020 to July, and then to September. 

The FY 2021 and FY 2022 target for the IoM newsletter is to publish three editions each year. The target 

for number of studies, briefs or other documents is to prepare to publish three documents in FY 2021 

and four documents in FY 2022. The FY 2021 target for surveys is to administer the next MPS in the 

second quarter of FY 2021. The FY 2022 target is to design or implement another Governmentwide or 

focused survey, predicated on MSPB having a provisional or approved research agenda. 
15 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

editions or other articles.

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

Results Targets

FY 2014 Published 3 IoM newsletter editions and 

6 online articles (all MSPs and 4 PPPs). FY 2020 Publish 3 IoM editions. 

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 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.

Performance Goal 1C-2: Maintain the number and scope of 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 2014 4 reports approved and published. FY 2020 Prepare for publication of 4 or more 

study reports or other documents.

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 Prepare for publication of 4 or more 

study documents

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. 

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 and approval by the new 

Chairman. 
16 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2020

Published research brief The State of 

Federal HR Workforce: Changes and 

Challenges. Prepared for publication and 

awaiting review and 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.

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. An RFQ 

for MSPB’s survey platform was issued 

by DOI’s NBC; 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 2020

Using a Federal Risk and Authorization 

Management Program (FedRAMP)

certified, web-based survey capability 

(see M4-2), design and implement a 

Governmentwide survey in 4th quarter

FY 2020 or 1st quarter of 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 2021 Implement Governmentwide survey in 

2nd quarter FY 2021. 

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 2022 Design or implement Governmentwide 

or focused study survey.

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 Chairman) and a 

secure web-based survey capability. 

Began defining requirements for a new 

survey capability. MSPB has obtained 

EHRI data from OPM for FY 2016 

and 2017, and is negotiating with OPM 

for continued access to EHRI data.
17 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2019

Procured a new web-based, 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 

near completion. After two extensions 

of OPM’s FEVS, the MPS is tentatively 

scheduled to be administered in the 2nd

quarter of FY 2021. 

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 the Annual Report for FY 2019. This included a review of significant 

actions such as agency human capital programs, hiring, workforce shaping, work-life programs, and 

employee performance management and rewards. 

Because MSPB began FY 2021 without a quorum, it did not set a target for review of OPM regulations. 

The FY 2022 target is TBD based on FY 2021 results. The FY 2021 and FY 2022 targets for reviewing 

OPM significant actions are to maintain the scope of review and publish the review of the prior year’s 

actions in the MSPB AR. 

Performance Goal 1D-1: Maintain program for review of 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).

Results Targets

FY 2014 Decisions issued on 3 cases involving

review of OPM regulations. FY 2020 No target set, no quorum.

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 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2017 Not rated, no quorum. 

FY 2018 Not rated, no quorum.

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

FY 2020 No target set, not rated, no quorum.
18 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

Results Targets

FY 2014

Published MSPB’s FY 2013 AR

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant actions in FY 2013

included guidance on agency policies to 

prevent domestic violence, Senior 

Executive Service (SES) exit survey, 

guidance for supervisory training and 

Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act, USA Hire, 

extension of certain benefits to samesex spouses of Federal employees, and 

proposed rules for designation of 

national security positions and for 

nondiscrimination.

FY 2020

Maintain scope of review; publish 

review of OPM significant actions for 

previous year in MSPB AR. 

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 Governwide 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, recruitment, 

engagement, diversity, and inclusion 

initiative, and Federal supervisory and 

managerial framework and guidance.

FY 2022

Maintain scope of review; publish 

review of OPM significant actions for 

previous year in MSPB AR.

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 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. 
19 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2019

Published MSPB’s FY 2018 AR

including review of OPM significant 

actions. Significant FY 2018 actions 

included a review of overarching 

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.

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: Inform, promote, and/or encourage actions by policymakers, as appropriate, 

that strengthen Federal merit systems laws and regulations. Beginning in FY 2021, this objective is 

reworded to read: “MSPB’s work is referenced by a variety of policy-related, educational, professional, 

or media sources.” 

Results indicate this objective was Met. MSPB’s PG for scope of citations was achieved. MSPB cases, 

studies, reports, newsletter articles, and other products were cited hundreds of times in nearly 120 

different sources or outlets. Sources included trade publications on Federal management and legal 

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

blogs. Notable citations included references to MSPB’s studies on sexual harassment in the 

Government Accountability Office’s report and testimony about sexual harassment at the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit decision in Sayers v. VA. MSPB exceeded its target for articles or documents published 

or posted with policymakers as a primary audience. These documents included: a guidance webpage 

pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 13891 and OMB Memorandum M-20-02; our COVID-19 webpage; 

our Data Governance Body charter,

7 a new merit systems studies fact sheet; a research brief entitled The 

State of Federal HR Workforce: Changes and Challenges; three IoM newsletter editions; a policy on prohibited 

conduct in MSPB proceedings; 2019 Annual Employee Survey results (from the FEVS); No FEAR Act 

data; the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act inventory; and other annual agency reports, 

plans, and budget documents. 

The FY 2021 and FY 2022 targets for citations of MSPB’s work are to maintain the scope of 

references. Beginning in FY 2021, we combined goal 2A-2 with goal 2C-2. This new goal will be placed 

under objective 2C and will include MSPB documents intended to inform and educate policymakers, 

HR practitioners, Federal employees and other stakeholders about the merit systems, how to support 

merit-based management and avoid PPPs. More information about this new PG is included under 

objective 2C. 

7 Note that the FY 2020 APR published in January 2021 included publication of our data page in accordance with OMB Memorandum 

M-19-23 and the Federal Data Strategy (FDS). The data page was published in FY 2019.
20 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

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

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

professional literature, EOs, the media, or other sources. 

Results Targets

FY 2014

MSPB’s work was cited in over 94 

different sources. Congress cited The 

Power of Employee Engagement report in its 

request for the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) to study 

Federal employee morale and 

engagement. MSPB was also cited in 

legislation on sensitive positions and new 

VA legislation. 

FY 2020 Maintain scope of references.

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 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 text book on Federal HR, and 

in congressional discussions of veterans’ 

hiring, addressing employee misconduct, 

and preventing discrimination on the 

basis of sexual orientation.

FY 2022 Maintain scope of references.

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 Services (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.
21 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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; the National 

Academy of Public Administration; 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. 

Performance Goal 2A-2: Maintain the number and scope of MSPB products focused on 

policymakers or changing Governmentwide policy. 

Measure: Number, type, and scope of MSPB products created and made available to inform 

policymakers on issues and potential improvements to merit systems policies, laws, and/or 

regulations. Beginning in FY 2021, this performance goal is combined with PG 2C-2, and placed 

under objective 2C.

Results Targets

FY 2014

Posted Research Highlights for the clean 

records, favoritism, training and 

experience, sexual orientation, and 

veterans hiring policies and practices 

reports and four previously published 

reports. Compiled highlights into a 

“catalog’’ of MSPB studies including an 

introduction by the Chairman. 

FY 2020

Develop and post 3 or more products 

focused on policy change or informing 

policymakers. 

FY 2015

Posted Research Highlights for reports on 

veterans redress laws, fair and open 

competition, and due process; a 

monograph on Federal employee due 

process rules and reality; and Chairman 

Grundmann’s testimony on Senate bills 

S. 1082, S. 1117, and S. 1856. 

FY 2021

Beginning in FY 2021, this goal is 

discontinued, combined with goal 2C-2 

and placed under objective 2C.
22 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2016

Posted Research Highlights for reports on 

SES training, nepotism in the Federal 

workforce, and the MSPs: guiding fair 

and effective management, Chairman 

Grundmann’s testimony from MSPB’s 

December 2015 reauthorization hearing 

before the House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Government 

Operations, and an article on using 

indefinite suspensions in cases 

involving possible criminal behavior.

FY 2017

Published an interactive version of the 

Adverse Action Report; perspectives on 

addressing misconduct in the civil 

service; the MSPs: Use in Guiding Fair 

and Effective Management of the Workforce; 

and an annotated diagram illustrating 

current avenues of review of appeals of 

adverse action taken against Federal 

employees.

FY 2018

Published articles 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.

FY 2019

Published updated frequently asked 

questions (FAQs) on MSPB functions 

given the lack of Board members; the 

FY 2018 AR including information for 

policymakers about OPM’s history and 

capacity; Acting Chairman Robbins’s

February 28, 2019 testimony at a 

hearing on the effects of Board 

member vacancies before the House 

Committee on Oversight and Reform

Subcommittee on Government 

Operations; Acting Chief Executive and 

Administrative Officer Tristan Leavitt’s

July 23, 2019 testimony at a hearing on 

whistleblowers at the VA before the 

House VA Committee Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations; a data 

webpage as required by the Evidence 

Act; Personal Assistance Services Policy 

and Procedures; and other annual 

agency reports, plans, and budget 

documents. 
23 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2020

Updated the PPP pages on the website; 

published updated figures on PFR 

processing; published a COVID-19

webpage and a webpage on guidance

pursuant to EO 13891 and OMB 

Memorandum M-20-02; and published 

Data Governance Body’s charter in 

accord with the FDS. Also 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. Posted 

policy on prohibited conduct, 2019 

AES results, and No FEAR Act data. 

Also published MSPB Strategic Plan for 

FYs 2020-2024, APR-APP for 

FYs 2019-2021, Congressional Budget 

Justification (CBJ) for FY 2021, and 

FY 2019 AR.

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

of PPPs in the workplace through successful outreach. 

Results indicate this objective was Not Met. MSPB conducted 76 outreach events, which was 24 percent 

less than the target of 100 events. The COVID-19 pandemic and the response to the pandemic negatively 

affected the number of events, because many events planned for the spring could not pivot to a virtual 

platform in time to be conducted on schedule. Over time, virtual presentations became the norm, and the 

pace of presentations increased. 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 labor law attorneys, HR and equal employment opportunity 

professionals, academic and Federal researchers, legal organizations, Federal executive branch 

departments and agencies, employee and affinity groups, academic institutions, and cabinet officials from 

Japan. Despite the ongoing crisis, MSPB staff presented 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 Program. Notably, MSPB was invited to speak with OMB officials about 

the state of the Federal HR workforce, and with congressional officials about sexual harassment. 

It is likely that the pandemic will continue to affect the frequency of outreach events. In addition, there 

may be fewer outreach events given the beginning of a new administration and the anticipation of new 

Board nominees. Therefore, MSPB set a target of 60 outreach events for FY 2021. The FY 2022 target 

is TBD based on FY 2021 results.

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

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. 

Results Targets

FY 2014

Conducted 100+ outreach events on 

legal, studies, merit/MSPs/PPPs, 

administrative, and other issues. 

FY 2020 Conduct 100 or more outreach events.

FY 2015

Conducted 144 outreach events on legal, 

studies, merit/MSPs/PPPs, 

administrative, and other issues. 

FY 2021 Conduct 60 or more outreach events.
24 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 TBD based in FY 2021 results.

FY 2017

Conducted 138 outreach events and

implemented the new outreach calendar, 

which improves the collection of 

outreach data including type of audience 

feedback collected at events. 

FY 2018

Conducted 134 outreach events.

Consideration of methods to collect 

customer feedback on events to

continue in FY 2019.

FY 2019

Conducted over 130 outreach events; 

given the low rate of events early in the 

FY, we decided that improvements in 

collection of customer feedback at 

outreach events will be reconsidered in 

the future in conjunction with agency 

priorities and available resources.

FY 2020 Conducted 76 outreach events. 

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

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

FY 2021, this objective is reworded to read: “Advance the understanding of merit, the MSPs, and the 

PPPs by developing and sharing informational and educational materials and guidance.” 

Results indicate this objective was Partially Met. MSPB exceeded the target for the number of 

educational and informational materials made available on the website, with one or more documents 

posted or updated in each of seven categories of information. These documents included: three IoM

newsletter editions; one research brief; a new studies fact sheet; the FY 2019 Annual Report; other 

agency annual reports, plans, and budget documents; 2019 FEVS results; No FEAR Act data; a new 

webpage on COVID-19 and an information sheet on reductions in force (RIFs); and new policies on 

prohibited conduct and using Zoom for Government. The target for number of visits to select pages 

on the MSPB website was not achieved as the number of total visits in FY 2020 was more than 5% 

lower than the number of visits in the previous fiscal year. 

Beginning in FY 2021, MSPB is focusing more on making informational and educational materials and 

guidance available to stakeholders. The new performance goal includes providing information relevant 

to policymakers (formerly 2A-2) and educational standards and guidance (formerly 2C-2). The new PG, 

numbered 2C-1, is to maintain number and scope of available informational and educational materials 

and guidance. The new measure is the number of new or updated informational or educational documents 

made available electronically or on MSPB’s website. The FY 2021 target is to make eight or more new or 

substantially updated materials available on the website. The FY 2022 target is TBD based on 

FY 2021 results. In FY 2021, MSPB will discontinue measuring the number of website visits. When the 

new website is implemented, MSPB may consider and establish a more relevant goal and a measure 

focused on user satisfaction. 
25 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Performance Goal 2C-1: Maintain the number and scope of materials viewed or accessed from 

MSPB’s website that are designed to improve the practice and understanding of merit. 

Beginning in FY 2021, MSPB discontinued this performance goal.

Measure: Number of visits to the MSPB website pages involving information, materials, or guidance 

related to improving the practice and understanding of merit from MSPB’s website. Beginning in 

FY 2021, MSPB discontinued this performance measure.

Results Targets

FY 2014

Over 634,000 visits to select MSPB 

webpages and almost 11.8 million hits to 

documents linked on those webpages. 

FY 2020 Number of visits within ± 5 % of 

FY 2019 results.

FY 2015

Over 655,400 visits to select MSPB 

webpages, within ± 5% of the visits in 

FY 2014. 

FY 2021 Goal discontinued.

FY 2016 892,379 visits to select MSPB webpages,

over 36% more than in FY 2015. 

FY 2017 1,326,462 visits to select MSPB webpages,

over 48% more than in FY 2016.

FY 2018 1,539,045 visits to select MSPB webpages, 

over 16% more than in FY 2017. 

FY 2019 1,614,904 visits to select MSPB webpages, 

within 5% of the number in FY 2018. 

FY 2020 1,499,747 visits to select MSPB webpages,

7% fewer than in FY 2019.

Performance Goal 2C-2: Maintain number and scope of available educational materials and 

guidance. Beginning in FY 2021, this PG is reworded to read: “Maintain number and scope of 

available informational and educational materials and guidance” and renumbered as PG 2C-1.

Measure: Number and type of merit systems educational materials and guidance MSPB makes available 

electronically or on MSPB’s website. Beginning in FY 2021, this measure is reworded to read “Number 

of new or updated informational or educational documents made available electronically or on MSPB’s

website,” and is renumbered 2C-1.

Results Targets

FY 2014

Posted 8 Research Highlights; 9 radio interviews; a 

letter and report regarding the VA SES 

legislation; webpage and training video for

those interested in providing pro bono 

representation; 2 materials for the studies 

research agenda; 2 materials for the Special 

Panel oral argument; items related to MSPB’s

new jurisdictional regulations; and 12

documents related to furlough cases.

FY 2020

Post or distribute electronically 5 new 

or updated textual or multimedia 

educational products.

FY 2015

Posted 3 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 8 new 

or updated informational or 

educational products.
26 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2017

Published interactive version of the Adverse 

Action report and MSPs: Use in Guiding Fair 

and Effective Management of the Workforce; two 

external reviews of MSPB’s IT systems; an 

annotated illustration of current avenues of 

review or appeal for a Federal adverse action;

designation of the new Vice Chairman Mark 

A. Robbins; guidance on lack of quorum; and 

the 2016 MPS data. Updated/ reorganized 

the e-FOIA Reading Room web page and 

created a new Privacy Act Program webpage.

FY 2018

Posted 4 articles or briefs (see 1C-1); 3 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 FAQs, Information Quality 

Guidelines, and 2017 FOIA logs. 

FY 2019

Posted 3 IoM editions and 4 research briefs; 3 

Federal Register notices and 5 press releases; 

the FY 2018 AR; other agency AR, 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.
27 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 

FDS.8 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 FYs 2020-2024, 

APR-APP for FYs 2019-2021, CBJ for 

FY 2021, FY 2019 AR, FY 2019 Annual 

Financial Report, and an information sheet 

on RIFs. Posted updated figures on PFR 

processing, FAIR Act inventory, 2019 

AES/FEVS results, and No FEAR Act data.

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. 

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

competencies and inclusion were exceeded, and the target for diversity was met. The 2020 FEVS 

engagement index was 80%, exceeding the target.9 

The 2021 and FY 2022 targets for competencies, diversity, inclusion, and employee engagement are 

defined as an average positive response 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 that they and others in the workforce 

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

Results Targets

FY 2014 FEVS Competency average = 64%. FY 2020 Competency average = 70% or higher. 

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 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).

8 Note that the FY 2020 APR published in January 2021 included publication of our data page in accordance with OMB Memorandum 

M-19-23 and the FDS. The data page was published in FY 2019.

9 This narrative has been updated from the FY 2020 APR published in January 2021 because engagement results from the 2020 FEVS 

were made available by OPM.
28 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

MSPB employees.

Measure: Average percent agreement on diversity (FEVS questions) and workplace inclusion (IS 

questions). 

Results Targets

FY 2014 FEVS Diversity average = 61%.

IS Inclusion average = 77%. FY 2020 Diversity average = 70% or higher.Inclusion average = 70% or higher.

FY 2015 FEVS Diversity average = 71%.

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

FY 2016 FEVS Diversity average = 67%. 

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

FY 2017 FEVS Diversity average = 66%.

IS Inclusion average = 76%. 

FY 2018 FEVS Diversity average = 61%.

IS Inclusion average = 81%. 

FY 2019 FEVS Diversity average = 72%.

IS Inclusion average = 84%. 

FY 2020

Diversity average = 75% (derived from 

the IS due to the FEVS delay). 

Inclusion average = 83% (derived from 

the IS due to the FEVS delay).

Performance Goal M1-3: Strengthen and maintain employee engagement and address 

engagement issues identified in the FEVS. 

Measure: Average percent agreement on FEVS engagement questions.

Results Targets

FY 2014 FEVS Engagement Index = 62% FY 2020 Engagement Index = 70% or higher.

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 2018 FEVS Engagement Index = 66%

FY 2019 FEVS Engagement Index = 72%

FY 2020 FEVS Engagement Index = 80%

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

resources now and in the future. 

The target for this objective was postponed, so this objective and goal in FY 2020 were Not Rated. 

We will identify a new goal and measure for FY 2021, if appropriate. The FY 2022 goal and measure 

for budgetary and financial management are TBD based on FY 2021 results.

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

resource accountability. 

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 2014 12% of funded positions vacant,

averaged over 12 months. FY 2020 Consider other measures of budgeting and financial management.

FY 2015 4% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months. FY 2021 Consider new goal and measure when quorum restored. 
29 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2016 8.7% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months. FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2017 3.4% of funded positions vacant, 

averaged over 12 months.

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. 

Management Objective M3: Improve and maintain information technology and information services 

programs to support agency mission and administrative functions.

Results indicate this objective was Exceeded. Results from the FY 2020 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 targets for both IS measures are set at 70 percent or higher. The FY 2022 targets for these 

measures are TBD based on FY 2021 results. In FY 2021, MSPB is adding a performance goal (M3-3) 

for cybersecurity. In FY 2021, we will finalize the goal statement and define an appropriate measure for 

this performance goal. The FY 2022 target is TBD based on FY 2021 results. 

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

and applications. 

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

recovery capability.

Results Targets

FY 2014 Average unscheduled downtime for key 

systems was 1.13%. FY 2020 Average agreement = 65% or higher.

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. 

Took necessary IT actions to achieve 

the targets listed for 1A-1, 1A-3, 1A-6, 

1C-3, 2B-1, and 2C-3. 

FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2017 2017 IS average agreement = 58%, 

compared to the 2016 result of 45%. 

FY 2018 IS average agreement = 64%.

FY 2019 IS average agreement = 67%.

FY 2020 IS average agreement = 79%. 
30 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

 

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

Measure: Average percent agreement on relevant IS questions. 

Results Targets

FY 2016 New PG in FY 2017. FY 2020 Average agreement = 65% or higher.

(PG renumbered to M3-2.)

FY 2017 2017 IS average agreement = 52%, 

compared to the 2016 result of 47%. FY 2021 Average agreement = 70% or higher.

FY 2018 IS average agreement = 72%. FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2019 IS average agreement = 72%; goal 

renumbered as M3.2 for FY 2020.

FY 2020 IS average agreement = 80%. 

Performance Goal M3-3: Continuously enhance cybersecurity. 

Measure: To be defined in FY 2021. 

Results Targets

FY 2017 Include past data if available. FY 2021 Finalize the goal statement and define a 

measure for tracking cybersecurity. 

FY 2018 Include past data if available. FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2019 Include past data if available. 

FY 2020 Include past data if available, new goal 

in FY 2021.

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

and provide a web-based survey capability.

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

applications. Although progress on modernization was delayed from April through September due to 

the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentages of electronic filings of initial appeals and pleadings were the 

highest since we started measuring them in FY 2012, and MSPB significantly expanded electronic case 

files. MSPB met the target for implementation of the new survey platform by supporting initial access, 

awarding a contract for technical support, and issuing an authority to operate the Qualtrics survey 

platform, which is certified by FedRAMP. 

The FY 2021 target for modernizing core business applications is to deliver a roadmap for IT 

modernization, including moving MSPB applications to the cloud. The FY 2021 target for agency 

survey capability is to successfully implement a Governmentwide survey (under 1C-3). The FY 2022 

targets for both goals are TBD based on FY 2021 results.
31 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

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

electronically.

Results Targets

FY 2014

Interim indicators: 55% of initial 

appeals and 83% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Furlough cases were 

processed electronically in selected 

ROs, 37 PFRs of furlough cases were 

filed electronically, and one furlough 

Board decision was filed electronically 

with the court. Drafted an RFI for 

electronic adjudication (e-Adjudication).

FY 2020

Substantially complete development of 

the next generation of MSPB core 

business applications, and related IT 

modernization efforts. 

FY 2015

Interim indicators: 56% of initial 

appeals and 80% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Issued an RFI 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. 

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 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

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 auto-mate 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 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.
32 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

FY 2019

Interim indicators: 69% of initial 

appeals and 89% of pleadings filed 

electronically. Awarded contract for 

new core business applications; began 

configuration of e-filing and initial 

appeals processing components.

FY 2020

Interim indicators: 77% of initial 

appeals and 93% of pleadings were filed 

electronically, an increase from 

FY 2019 and the highest we have 

experienced since 2013; significantly 

expanded ECFs to allow for use in any 

FY 2020 appeal, and any FY 2019 case 

in ROs/FOs where the electronic 

record is complete as an ECF (except 

cases involving sensitive security 

information or video files). Continued 

development of initial appeal process 

on new application platform. Further 

modernization progress delayed due to 

the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Performance Goal M4-2: Improve agency survey capability 

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

Results Targets

FY 2017

Drafted a Performance Work Statement 

(PWS) 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 2020

Fully implement a FedRAMP certified, 

web-based survey capability to ensure 

ability to design, test, and implement 

Governmentwide surveys (see 1C-3) no 

later than 1st quarter FY 2021. 

FY 2018

Work accelerated on IT modernization 

(see PG M4-1), and it became clear that 

separately migrating to a new data center 

would not be cost-effective because the 

new core applications will be cloudbased. Therefore, we are devoting data 

center migration resources to improving 

disaster recovery for the existing data 

center and supporting collateral projects 

necessary for comprehensive IT 

modernization to achieve 100% 

e-Adjudication. 

FY 2021 Support successful implementation of 

Governmentwide survey (under 1C-3). 

FY 2019 Procured a new web-based, FedRAMP 

certified survey application. FY 2022 TBD based on FY 2021 results.

FY 2020

Supported initial access and awarded 

contract for technical support, and 

issued an authority to operate for the 

FedRAMP certified Qualtrics web-based

survey platform.
33 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Means and Strategies Needed to Accomplish MSPB’s Objectives 

Over the next four to five years, MSPB will use the following means and strategies to accomplish its 

objectives. Selected means and strategies may be adjusted and may be emphasized in specific years, or 

may be used over the entire period. Strategies may be carried out by one or more offices. 

Strategic Goal 1

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

by fair and efficient adjudication and ADR processes.

1. Provide effective, efficient, and appropriately transparent adjudication of appeals in our 

ROs/FOs and at HQ. 

2. Work with new Board members to consider options to reduce the backlog of cases at HQ, 

determine how to track and measure success in reducing this backlog, and implement 

appropriate changes to the PGs, measures, and targets in MSPB’s APPs to ensure transparency 

in accomplishing this important goal. (Similar to strategies for objectives 1B and 1D.) 

3. Effectively and efficiently implement changes in adjudicating cases in accordance with changes 

in statute, regulation, or policy (e.g., the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act 

of 2017).

4. Improve and maintain adjudication case processing data, data systems, practices, and policies to 

ensure valid and reliable data for management and reporting purposes that comply with 

standard data practices and statutes (e.g., GPRAMA, WPEA, etc.).

5. Modernize MSPB’s core adjudication applications, including e-Appeal Online (MSPB's e-filing

platform), case management, document management, and document assembly capabilities as

MSPB transitions from paper-based to 100% electronic adjudication. (Also a strategy under M4.)

6. Integrate privacy, records and information management, accessibility, and cybersecurity into 

these next generation adjudicatory applications. 

7. Ensure adequate adjudication expertise and capacity through strategic HC planning (SHCP). 

(Also a strategy for objectives 1B and M1.)

8. Ensure continuity of expertise in legal and procedural issues through effective and efficient 

knowledge sharing and appropriate training of adjudication staff. 

9. Review Board and court decisions, share significant changes with stakeholders, and determine 

and implement necessary changes to adjudication processes and procedures. 

10. Monitor adjudication performance and ensure accountability for the adjudication process, the 

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

and customer satisfaction with the appeals process, within available resources. 

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

needs of the involved parties. 

12. Ensure effective representation of MSPB in cases brought before other adjudicatory bodies, 

such as the CAFC, any circuit court for certain whistleblower appeals, U.S. district courts for 

mixed cases, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

13. Continue the automated survey process to sample and invite feedback from adjudication and 

ADR customers and make changes in processes, as appropriate. 

14. Consider the future structure of ROs/FOs, and adjudication offices at HQ, including location, 

cost, schedule of lease renewals, availability of technology, and other factors to improve 

effectiveness and efficiency. 

15. Explore sharing services/contracts between MSPB and its sister agencies (Office of Special 

Counsel (OSC), FLRA, Office of Government Ethics, etc.), e.g., for IT shared services, court 

reporting, and videoconferencing facilities. 
34 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

1. Provide effective and efficient processing of requests to enforce MSPB decisions and improve 

the transparency of the enforcement process. 

2. Work with new Board members to consider options to reduce the backlog of enforcement 

cases at HQ. Determine how to measure results for reducing this backlog, and implement 

appropriate changes to the PGs, measures, and targets in MSPB’s APPs to ensure transparency 

in accomplishing this important goal. (Similar to strategies for objectives 1A and 1D.)

3. Ensure adequate adjudication expertise and capacity through SHCP. (Also a strategy for 

objectives 1A and M1.)

4. Ensure continuity of expertise in legal and procedural issues through effective and efficient 

knowledge sharing and appropriate training of adjudication staff. 

5. Review Board and court decisions, share significant changes with stakeholders, and determine 

and implement necessary changes to adjudication processes and procedures. 

6. Monitor adjudication performance and ensure accountability for the adjudication process, the 

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

and customer satisfaction with the appeals process, within available resources. 

7. Ensure effective representation of MSPB in cases brought before other adjudicatory bodies, 

such as the CAFC, any circuit court for certain whistleblower appeals, U.S. district courts for 

mixed cases, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

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

Federal human capital management issues.

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

management issues and practices in accordance with accepted research practices.

2. Periodically conduct a transparent process to develop and update the merit systems studies 

research agenda that includes feedback from studies stakeholders and customers. (See the merit 

systems studies research agenda for FYs 2015-2018.)

3. Expeditiously and appropriately report findings and recommendations from merit systems 

studies that provide value to the President, Congress, Federal HR policymakers, practitioners, 

Federal managers, supervisors, employees, and other stakeholders and that positively impact the 

merit systems and Federal HC management. 

4. Work with new Board members to ensure prompt publication of merit system study reports 

following the dearth of such reports for almost four years due to the lack of quorum. 

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

APPs to ensure transparency in accomplishing this important goal. 

5. Publish IoM newsletter editions, research highlights, and other products that address timely, 

focused information about Federal merit systems and workforce management issues.

6. Provide relevant survey expertise and technical and operational requirements to maintain a 

FedRAMP certified survey capability—presenting flexible survey design and administration, and 

Governmentwide compatibility in a secure, cloud-based environment—to conduct research 

surveys and collect other data to support MSPB’s merit systems studies mission and internal 

program evaluation. (Related to objective M4.) 

7. Administer periodic MPSs, and other specialized surveys, to assess and report on the overall 

health of the Federal merit systems, including the understanding and practice of merit in the 

workplace, and occurrence of PPPs. 
35 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

8. Ensure that current merit systems studies processes and tools conform with requirements 

related to privacy, records and information management, information quality, accessibility, and 

FOIA, as appropriate. 

9. Ensure MSPB has the analytic workforce needed to conduct high-quality objective studies, 

produce valuable study findings and recommendations, and perform essential program 

evaluation through SHCP. (Also a strategy for objective M1.)

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

OPM, as appropriate.

1. Maintain review of OPM rules, regulations, and significant actions and take action, as 

appropriate, to ensure adherence to MSPs and avoidance of PPPs. 

2. Work with new Board members to consider options to reduce the backlog of requests for

review of OPM regulations, determine how to track and measure success in reducing this 

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

to ensure transparency in accomplishing this important goal. (Similar to strategies for objectives 

1A and 1B.)

3. Monitor the scope of OPM significant action reviews. Include a review of the significant actions 

of OPM in the MSPB AR. 

Strategic Goal 2

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

professional, or media sources.

1. Track references to MSPB’s work in professional, academic, trade, and media publications 

(print and electronic) to ensure information about MSPB’s work in protecting merit systems is 

disseminated appropriately. 

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

prevention of PPPs in the workplace through successful outreach.

1. Conduct outreach activities within available resources (e.g., conference presentations, 

practitioner forums, mock hearings, briefings, etc.) designed to improve the practice and 

understanding of merit, MSPs and PPPs, and that provide value to participants. 

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

presentations and other products designed to inform and influence actions by practitioners and 

other stakeholders that will improve adherence to MSPs, prevent PPPs, or improve the 

understanding of a merit-based civil service or understanding of MSPB, its functions, and 

processes.

3. Consider a centralized catalog of presentations and the electronic, web-based delivery of 

outreach presentations to improve efficiency of outreach and reduce travel costs.

4. Continue tracking outreach events, and note when MSPB presents material that results in 

continuing legal education and continuing education unit credits to audience members, which 

may promote cost-effective methods to meet these requirements. 

5. Consider and develop effective and efficient methods to obtain feedback from outreach 

participants and audience members, and use that feedback to assess outreach success, improve 

outreach quality, gather suggestions for improvement, and better address stakeholder needs, 

within resource constraints. 
36 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

developing and sharing informational and educational materials and guidance.

1. Translate and deliver information from adjudication, merit systems studies and OPM review 

into products designed to inform actions by policymakers that will support merit, improve 

adherence to MSPs, and prevent PPPs. 

2. Develop educational standards, materials, and guidelines on merit, MSPs, PPPs, and the meritbased civil service to ensure excellent Government service to the public. 

3. Develop and make available information and materials about MSPB’s adjudication processes, 

outcomes, and legal precedents to support the parties’ ability to prepare and file thorough and 

well-reasoned arguments in appeals filed with MSPB.

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

implement educational programs for Federal employees and the public by recognizing agencies’ 

merit systems educational efforts on MSPB’s website or in MSPB reports.

5. Develop and make MSPB products and educational information widely available through the 

website, social media, and other appropriate avenues. 

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.

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

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

2. Provide developmental experiences and access to training and educational resources (e.g., 

employee orientation, on-the-job training, developmental assignments, formal training 

experiences, education and training resources, and drills when appropriate, etc.) to ensure 

employees have the competencies necessary to perform MSPB’s work. Consider collaborating 

with other agencies to obtain cost-effective training. 

3. Use results from the FEVS and IS and apply leadership and management skills to strengthen 

and maintain a culture that supports a diverse, inclusive, and fully engaged workforce.

4. Considering the external factors and internal challenges that may affect MSPB’s mission and 

operations, initiate and maintain a continual SHCP process to consider MSPB’s most critical 

HC requirements to achieve its mission and support functions and to achieve its HC 

management objectives. 

5. Utilize the SHCP process to help evaluate MSPB office and grade structure, streamline hiring 

authorities, use personnel flexibilities (e.g., not-to-exceed temporary positions, 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments, etc.), and ensure adequate training 

and development. 

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

necessary resources now and in the future. 

1. Establish and effectively communicate mission, support, and operational priorities to MSPB 

employees to ensure achievement of agency objectives and goals.

2. Utilize people and budgetary resources effectively and efficiently to ensure adequate staff are 

available and have the competencies to accomplish our goals. 
37 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

3. Effectively communicate resources needed (funds, people, operational requirements, and 

contingencies) to accomplish MSPB’s objectives (mission and support) to external stakeholders, 

including how resource levels and external factors (such as the administration’s priorities) may 

affect MSPB performance. 

4. Periodically consider the structure of HQ offices (including possible consolidation and/or 

outsourcing of support functions), and the structure and location of ROs/FOs including 

statutory requirements, costs, availability of technology, best practices in operations, and other 

factors to improve effectiveness and efficiency.

5. Periodically assess long-term contracts and interagency agreements (e.g., IT hardware and 

software, leases, HR services, financial management, payroll, etc.) to ensure effective and 

efficient service and value to MSPB.

Management Objective M3: Improve and maintain information technology and information 

services programs to support agency mission and administrative functions.

1. Develop, implement, and maintain a stable, reliable, and secure IT infrastructure (hardware, 

software, applications, internet, file storage and retrieval systems, etc.), 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 and remote work, as appropriate. 

2. Ensure collaboration and coordination by OCB, IRM, and FAM, on privacy, records 

management, accessibility, procurement, and IT security. 

2. Implement modern-day technology solutions through pilot programs that align with IRM’s

strategy and roadmap.

3. Gather customer feedback from e-Adjudication customers, and other internal and external 

users as needed, and make changes to relevant applications and functionality, as appropriate. 

4. Ensure a disaster recovery capability for the existing data center.

5. Ensure effective and efficient support of internal and external IT customers.

6. Improve compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 

§ 794(d)).

7. Comply with OMB Memorandum M-17-25, “Reporting Guidance for Executive Order on Strengthening 

the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure,” and related OMB and Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) requirements. 

8. Provide ongoing computer and professional development training for MSPB staff and IT 

personnel, respectively. 

Management Objective M4: Modernize core business applications to achieve electronic 

adjudication and provide a web-based survey capability.

1. Modernize MSPB’s core adjudication applications, including e-Appeal Online (MSPB's e-filing

platform), case management, document management, and document assembly capabilities as

MSPB transitions from paper-based to 100% e-Adjudication. (Also a strategy under A1.)

2. Ensure secure storage and effective use of workforce data (from OPM and other sources).

3. Comply with OMB Memorandum M-17-25, “Reporting Guidance for Executive Order on Strengthening 

the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure,” and related OMB and DHS 

requirements. 

4. Provide ongoing computer and professional development training for MSPB staff and 

IT personnel, respectively. 
38 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

5. Consider consolidating, outsourcing, or reallocating resources and personnel to other missioncritical areas as a result of modernizing and migrating our core business applications to

the cloud. 

6. Maintain a FedRAMP certified survey capability—presenting flexible survey design and 

administration, and Governmentwide compatibility in a secure, cloud-based environment—to 

conduct research surveys and collect other data to support MSPB’s merit systems studies 

mission and internal program evaluation. (Related to objective 1C.) 
39 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Trends and Challenges that May Affect Agency Performance

Internal Management Challenges 

As discussed below, there are a number of internal management challenges currently facing MSPB. 

The most significant internal issue affecting MSPB is the lack of quorum of Board members. Other 

significant internal challenges that could affect MSPB’s ability to carry out its mission include human 

capital issues and IT reliability and 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 to this document, MSPB has been without 

a quorum of Board members since January 8, 2017, and without any presidentially appointed Senateconfirmed Board members since March 1, 2019. The lack of quorum has led to a backlog of PFRs and 

other cases at HQ awaiting Board decisions. This backlog totaled 2,942 cases as of the end of FY 2020, 

and it is growing every day. MSPB anticipates that it will take at least three years to process the 

inventory of cases at HQ once new Board members begin their work. The lack of quorum also 

prevents MSPB from releasing reports of merit systems studies and promulgating substantive 

regulations to accompany congressional changes to our jurisdiction or processes, and affects our review 

of OPM significant actions. 

The continued 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 (because this measure is based on the issuance of 

PFR decisions). Selecting interim measures and targets for these goals is pending restoration of a 

quorum. MSPB also could not rate the PG on reviewing OPM regulations because there is no Board to 

issue decisions on requests for regulatory review. Once a quorum is restored, MSPB will determine the 

most appropriate measures and targets for these PGs. The status of Board member nominations is 

provided on page 2 of this document. 

Other Human Capital Challenges. In addition to the lack of quorum, as of October 1, 2020, over 

31 percent of all MSPB employees, including almost 45 percent of AJs and adjudication managers 

involved with processing initial appeals, are eligible to retire between now and the end of 2022. 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 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 onedeep, 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. An 

assessment of our SHCP process and identification of ways to strengthen this process have been 

included in our program evaluation plan. This is a timely endeavor given the future arrival of new 

Board members and the current strategic planning cycle under OMB Circular A-11 Part 6 Section 230. 

We plan to utilize external SHCP expertise to assist us. The success of any strategic human capital 

planning depends on continued stability in funding for FY 2021 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. Retaining resources is even more critical given recently enacted and proposed legislative 

and administrative changes that may affect our jurisdiction and processes. (See the section on external 
40 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

factors affecting MSPB’s work.) In addition, there is some anecdotal evidence that job candidates may 

be hesitant to accept job offers from MSPB due uncertainty about the lack of Board members. 

On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lucia, et al. v. Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC), 138 S. Ct. 2044. The Court held that, because SEC administrative law judges (ALJs) 

exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States, they are inferior officers under 

the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and thereby must be both presidentially appointed and 

Senate-confirmed, or appointed through authority vested by Congress in the President, the courts of 

law, or the heads of departments. The parties conceded that the SEC ALJs were not appointed in 

accordance with the Appointments Clause. Because the petitioner in Lucia originally had a hearing 

before a constitutionally invalid ALJ, the Court found that he was entitled to a new hearing before a 

different, properly appointed ALJ.

Lucia has the potential to affect MSPB from both an adjudicatory and operational standpoint. Although 

the MSPB does not currently employ any ALJs—we utilize other agencies’ ALJs to adjudicate certain 

types of appeals through interagency agreements—we do hear appeals of adverse actions taken against 

ALJs under 5 U.S.C. § 7521. Lucia may affect MSPB case law regarding ALJs. In addition, some parties 

have raised Lucia challenges regarding MSPB’s AJs. If Lucia challenges regarding MSPB AJs are 

sustained, appellants who raised successful challenges may be entitled to new proceedings before an 

officer appointed in conformity with the Appointments Clause.

IT Reliability and Modernization. MSPB is committed to transitioning to 100 percent 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-19-21,10 requiring 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 addition, IRM is refreshing laptops and 

transitioning the public website to a modern cloud-based platform. 

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 applications to fully enable e-Adjudication of 

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

systems for case management, document management and document assembly and 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 applications and 

began configuring the electronic filing and initial appeal processing components. Progress on this project 

was delayed in FY 2020 due to the pandemic. The next steps include delivery of wireframes of internal 

and external user interfaces representing an end-to-end schematic of the adjudication process, followed 

by pilot testing the initial release of system functionality in FY 2021. We expect to fully implement our 

next generation core business applications and related IT modernization projects by the end of calendar 

year 2022. This multi-year effort will require a significant initial 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. Implementing past surveys has been 

challenging due to limited internal IT expertise needed to support the survey process and ensure 

compliance with new and rapidly changing Federal IT requirements. Meeting these requirements is 

10 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. 
41 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

necessary to obtain the cooperation of Federal agencies for the MPS and other surveys. Long-term 

effectiveness of the merit systems studies program requires MSPB to have a more stable and flexible 

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

FedRAMP certified survey platform in FY 2019, and we are utilizing it initially for the MPS in 2021.

 

Significant External Trends and Issues 

Although discussed in the preceding section on internal management challenges, the status of 

nominations and restoring a quorum are beyond MSPB’s control, also making them external factors. 

Also beyond MSPB’s control are the internal and external challenges involving the COVID-19 

pandemic. The effects of the pandemic, and the Government’s response to it, are discussed in this 

section. Other significant external trends or issues affecting MSPB’s ability to carry out its mission 

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

and workforce reshaping. This year, 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 continuously 

growing 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 FYs 2018-2020 contains 

a thorough review of laws passed in FY 2017 and FY 2018 that potentially directly affect MSPB 

jurisdiction and operations, and indirectly affect the agency through changes to Federal human capital 

management policy and practice. One of these laws is the VA Accountability and Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 2017.11 MSPB saw an increase in the average number of VA cases processed in the 

ROs/FOs since the law’s enactment. Data about VA cases processed in the ROs/FOs as reported in 

MSPB ARs indicate an average of 859 VA cases processed in FYs 2015-2016 compared to an average 

of 955 VA cases processed in FYs 2018-2019. The 11 percent increase emphasizes the need for MSPB 

to promulgate regulations regarding how it will address any differences in procedures necessitated by 

changes to the law. However, lacking a quorum of Board members prevents completing this 

important responsibility. 

More recently, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2020, enacted December 20, 

2019, explicitly protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress, including some classified 

disclosures. This will likely result in more appeals to MSPB, as well as increase the number of cases 

proceeding through the jurisdictional stage to hearings on the merits. Confusion over how to properly 

disclose classified information to Congress could also lead to increased improper disclosure disciplinary 

actions and resulting new appeals. In addition, significant to MSPB’s adjudication workload is the 

Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Hessami v. MSPB, No. 19-2221, in which the court determined that a 

nonfrivolous allegation must be determined based on just the appellant’s claims. This will lead to more 

hearings and decisions on the merits in whistleblower appeals, many of which are likely to be factually 

and legally complex.

Transition of the New Administration. President Biden has issued several memoranda and executive 

orders that affect Federal management, and they affect MSPB either directly or indirectly. Among the 

changes are the revocation of the 2018 labor relations executive orders (see below), and new 

memoranda and EOs delineating the administration’s priorities regarding equity, climate change, the 

COVID-19 pandemic, and building trust through the use of science and evidence. 

11 Pub. L. 115-41.
42 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

In the last APR-APP we reported that President Trump’s May 25, 2018 EO 13839 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. Until 

OPM revokes the regulations, MSPB remains constrained in its ability to accept these types of 

settlement agreements. 

Supreme Court Decision Related to LGBTQ Employment Rights. In Bostock v. Clayton County, 

GA, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), the Supreme Court held that taking action against employees because of 

their sexual identity or transgender status constitutes sex discrimination. While discrimination based on 

either sexual identity or transgender status had not been considered a violation of Title VII but sex 

discrimination has always been, the holding in Bostock opens the door for more bases of sex 

discrimination as an affirmative defense, thus adding to the complexity of these cases. While other 

Supreme Court decisions on topics such as age discrimination (Babb v. Wilkie 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2000)) 

and deference to agency regulations (Kisor v. Wilkie 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019)) will guide and inform Board 

adjudications, the Board does not anticipate a greater number of appeals filed because of their issuance. 

Government Reform, Budget Challenges, and Workforce Reshaping. The previous 

administration undertook efforts regarding Governmentwide reform and reorganization that were 

summarized in previous APR-APPs. There were no formal updates to that reform agenda in FY 2020, 

due in part to a shift in focus to responding to the pandemic. The new administration and Congress 

may implement other reform, budget, or workforce reshaping initiatives that could affect MSPB or its 

workload. 

Agencies’ budget challenges often lead to decisions that affect their civilian employees. Certain 

workforce actions that agencies may take would increase MSPB’s workload. For example, the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) publicly announced its plan to temporarily reduce its 

workforce by up to 13,000 employees due to the abrupt and significant reduction in user fees (due in 

part to decisions made in response to the pandemic), a significant source of funding for the agency.12

These personnel actions would have been appealable to MSPB, and the potential USCIS appeals alone 

would have equaled two times the average number of initial appeals MSPB receives over the course of 

the year. In late August 2020, USCIS announced it had averted this plan. 

In general, workforce reduction actions can result in adverse actions affecting Federal employees, and 

affected employees may file appeals of those actions with MSPB. 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 know for 

sure, it seems likely that many agencies will be facing budget cuts or shortfalls, which may lead to RIFs 

or furloughs of agency employees. As mentioned earlier, the reduction in fees paid to USCIS 

apparently was, in part, due to decisions made in response to the pandemic. In addition, agencies have 

had to quickly develop new operational policies during the pandemic. The effect on employees of 

12 Government Executive, July 21, 2020, Homeland Security Moves Forward With 13,000 Furloughs Despite Its Improving Financial 

Situation at https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/07/homeland-security-moves-forward-13000-furloughs-despite-its-improvingfinancial-situation/167081
43 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

telework eligibility determinations, return to work policies, safety and security protocols, accountability 

for health and safety behaviors, and sharing health-related information, as examples, could affect 

merit-based management, and increase PPPs. It is also possible that there could be 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. 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 is customers. A large portion of MSPB initial 

appeals, PFRs, and pleadings are filed electronically. Even so, the agency developed policies for 

appellants to continue to file by mail, and implemented video and web conferencing for virtual 

hearings. Alternative arrangements sometimes are also necessary for hearings when the parties do not 

have access to video or computers, or their options for web conferencing are limited. This is an 

ongoing process, made easier by the improvements we have already made in electronic processing, and 

the work we have ongoing to modernize our core business applications. Although the new 

applications will not be fully implemented until 2022, electronic processes are already expanding, and 

electronic “readiness” has improved in the last couple of years. 

The pandemic transformed daily life in 2020 and 2021. MSPB is very fortunate that the bulk of its 

work can be conducted remotely. All MSPB employees have agency laptops that can connect to 

MSPB’s network through a virtual private network or virtual desktop interface. In late March, MSPB 

instituted or expanded several policies including a mandatory work at home policy, more flexible work 

hours, and additional leave options. In early July, MSPB moved to maximum telework and developed 

policies and practices for employees to coordinate visits to MSPB offices for brief, infrequent, and 

mission-essential purposes. Even with laptops and connectivity, employees need a workspace at home, 

and now must balance work and family life in new and more demanding ways, e.g., working, caring for 

children and others in the home, overseeing virtual schooling, etc. From a work perspective, 

employees had to adjust to working from home full-time, maneuver through new routines and 

requirements, and become accustomed to connecting virtually for meetings and hearings. Finally, even 

with leadership and agency support, each person must manage the social and psychological aspects of 

such an abrupt change in work and life in response to the health and safety concerns that everyone 

everywhere is facing 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 outreach and educational functions improve workforce management 

over time and may reduce the time and cost of processing appeals for agencies, appellants, and the 

Government. 

 
44 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement

Program Evaluation 

MSPB programs broadly affect Federal merit systems and Federal management, and they generate 

significant value for Federal agencies and the public. Effective program evaluation is critical to ensuring 

that MSPB can continue to achieve its mission effectively and efficiently and to provide value now and 

in the future. Emphasis on program evaluation has increased in recent years. 

Program evaluation and performance measurement requirements are prescribed in GPRAMA, and 

were recently expanded in the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence 

Act)

13 and the FDS.14 By improving its data governance and data management, as mandated by these 

Governmentwide laws and directives, MSPB enhances its focus on data issues and serves as an 

umbrella over further developing policies and improving practices in data management, data quality, 

program evaluation, performance measurement, and related issues. MSPB established an agency 

webpage as required under OMB Memorandum M-19-23 and the FDS at www.mspb.gov/data. 

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

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

evaluation guidance from OMB, could compel additional resources and program evaluation staff. A 

relatively small increase in MSPB’s program evaluation resources and staff could 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 adequate 

internal program evaluation resources are not available, contractor support is a viable option for 

conducting tasks associated with customary program evaluation. Contractor support is generally a more 

expensive option, and would be most expedient when the evaluation is technical in nature, beyond the 

knowledge of existing program staff, focuses on program evaluation itself, or on the MSPB office that 

conducts program evaluation activities. 

Performance Measurement: Verifying and Validating Performance Information

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

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

about cases filed with MSPB. Case processing data are tracked and verified at various points in the 

process and extensive comparison checks on these data are performed at the end of each FY. Other 

quantitative and qualitative performance measures are reported by MSPB’s program offices. MSPB also 

collects external customer satisfaction data from adjudication, ADR and (more rarely) merit systems 

studies customers and stakeholders. Several of MSPB’s management PGs use data from OPM’s FEVS. 

MSPB also has an active internal survey program, which measures various management PGs contained in 

MSPB GPRAMA reports, and provides customer feedback on internal IT and administrative support and 

EEO programs. 

MSPB has made improvements in performance measurement and is currently, under the auspices of 

our Data Governance Body, in the process of updating its policies and practices involving 

whistleblower data. Our emphasis on 100 percent e-Adjudication and new core business applications, 

as well as the Evidence Act and FDS, highlight the importance of continually improving performance 

measurement and data quality. MSPB needs to consider the status of its performance measurement 

functions, and develop agency-wide policies and practices that will improve oversight, accountability, 

and coordination of MSPB’s data assets. It is likely the principles, policies, and processes developed for 

WPEA data will be expanded to include other critical case processing data. Such changes will help 

13 Pub. L. 115-435, signed by the President on January 14, 2019.

14 See https://strategy.data.gov/.
45 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

ensure the consistency, validity, and verifiability of the data used to manage MSPB programs and 

included in agency reports. 

Results of Program Evaluation Activity

Government Accountability Office assessment of processing WPEA cases at MSPB. GAO’s 2016 

report on the WPEA recommended updating MSPB’s user guide to include additional direction for 

entering WPEA data and for improving MSPB’s data quality checks to help identify discrepancies in 

WPEA data. In addition, MSPB initially assessed the data entry and data quality processes used for 

adjudication case management data, including, but not limited to, whistleblower data. Finally, MSPB’s 

considerable efforts in FY 2018 to define the requirements for modernizing its core business applications 

also included information about Law Manager, our current case management system, which will serve as 

a foundation for updating the data entry user guide and for defining appropriate quality checks in the 

reporting process. Developing the requirements to update our core business applications, including a 

next-generation electronic case management system, also served as a surrogate evaluation of Law 

Manager. MSPB does not plan to separately evaluate Law Manager since it will be replaced with a new 

application in the next two years. In addition, developing requirements for the new core business 

applications provided baseline information to assist in evaluating the functions of ORO. 

Define adjudication process/develop requirements for new core business applications. This 

activity involves validating the business and technical requirements for these applications, i.e., our case 

management, document management, and document assembly systems, to support e-Adjudication, and 

developing a prioritized path for upgrades necessary to support our business processes. In FY 2017, we 

began by developing a PWS to document our requirements. The contract was awarded in FY 2018 and 

work was completed in the third quarter of FY 2018. In FY 2019, MSPB selected the contractor to design 

and implement the new business applications. 

Program Evaluation Status 

MSPB Program Evaluation Status

Program/ 

System to 

Evaluate

Evaluation 

Start Year Status

Case 

processing 

and data 

integrity in 

the 

ROs/FOs

2017

Initial information was provided by the GAO WPEA report. Additional information was 

provided in the internal assessment of data entry processes for case management data. In 

FY 2018, further information was provided by defining the adjudication process as part 

of the initiative to develop requirements for new core business applications. Results of 

these efforts will help ensure compliance with GAO’s recommendations from the 

WPEA report and developing an agency-wide performance measurement policy. In 

addition, the automated process for surveying initial appeals and ADR participants 

provides ongoing data to inform next steps in this program evaluation. MSPB’s 

adjudication process may also be affected by legislative changes in the appeals process 

including specific timeliness and procedural requirements. 

Functions of 

ORO 2018

In FY 2018, we developed requirements for modernizing our core business applications, 

including business process narratives, breakdowns of internal and external user groups, 

and data flow diagrams. This baseline information provides a starting point to structure

and inform any evaluation of our adjudicatory processes. While program evaluation of 

ORO functions was not the focus of the requirements development effort, it was helpful 

in better understanding our processes and systems. Further steps in evaluating ORO 

functions will await guidance from a new Chairman.

Proposed Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement System Review Schedule

Effort to develop an agency policy for performance measurement, verification, and validation intersects 

with Governmentwide policy initiatives covering data quality and integrity, data management and 

governance, and related issues. This work continued in FY 2020 as resources allowed. Based on the 
46 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

availability of resources, a projected schedule for program evaluation activities through FY 2021 is 

provided below. Additional specifications for these evaluations and changes in the evaluation focus or 

schedule may occur when the quorum is restored and we have a new Chairman.

Program/Performance Measurement System Evaluation Start (FY) 

Implementation of SHCP process 2021

Assess agency telework usage and reporting 2022

Administrative functions of OCB 2023
47 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

Appendix A: WPEA Data for FY 2020

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

FY 2020. This report reflects cases processed from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020, 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.15 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 2020 due to the continued lack of quorum.16 

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 the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) first, and OSC does not seek corrective action 

on the individual’s behalf.17

Figure 1 displays data on the number and 

types of appeals that MSPB received in 

FY 2020 in which violations of 5 U.S.C.

§§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) were alleged. 

Appeals “received” by ROs/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.18 “Refiled appeals” are appeals that are refiled--by the appellant or on the AJ’s own 

motion--because they were previously dismissed without prejudice (DWOP) to refiling. A DWOP is a 

procedural option that allows for the dismissal and subsequent refiling of an appeal, often to allow the 

parties more time to prepare for the litigation of their cases. Remanded or refiled appeals are not new 

cases; they are separately docketed appeals that are related to initial appeals filed earlier in the same FY

or in a prior FY. If the related initial appeal was filed in the same FY, it would be included in the number 

15 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).

16 Since January 8, 2017, the Board has not had a quorum, and since March 1, 2019, the Board has not had any presidentially appointed, 

Senate-confirmed Board members. Since the lack of quorum began, no PFR decisions have been issued by the Board at HQ.

17 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. 

18 In FY 2020, 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. 

37 2

210

114

6

359

151

8

569

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Refiled Appeals Remanded Appeals Initial Appeals

Figure 1: FY 2020 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
48 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

of “initial appeals.” Because the ROs/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.19 Figure 2 depicts the number of 

appeals, both OAA appeals and IRA 

appeals, that were decided in FY 2020 in 

the regional and field offices 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 Figure2 for OAA appeals by depicting 

the outcomes of OAA appeals decided in 

the ROs/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.

20 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 

a negotiated grievance or arbitration procedures). This figure includes appeals that were withdrawn and 

appeals that were DWOP.21 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.

19 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.

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

of claims.

21 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.

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 37 21 14 59 44 175

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 3 4 4 7 17 35

Both sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 6 3 3 7 14 33

175

35 33

395

35

129

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

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
49 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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

claims may differ.22 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 58 OAA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in the 

ROs/FOs.23 It includes both the 

44 OAA appeals adjudicated on the 

merits with a § 2302(b)(8) claim only, as 

well as the 14 OAA appeals adjudicated 

on the merits with both §§ 2302(b)(8) 

and (b)(9) claims, as referenced in 

Figure 3.24 

The fact that corrective action is not 

ordered in an OAA appeal does not 

necessarily mean that the appellant 

obtained no relief. For example, in a 

removal appeal in which the appellant 

alleges reprisal, the Board could reverse the removal action because the agency failed to prove that 

the appellant committed the charged misconduct, or it could mitigate the removal penalty, while also 

finding that the appellant failed to establish reprisal. In any appeal involving a reprisal claim, the 

Board shall order corrective action for the reprisal claim if the appellant has demonstrated that: (1) 

they made a 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 31 OAA appeals adjudicated 

on the merits in the ROs/FOs. This figure 

includes the 17 OAA appeals adjudicated on 

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

the 14 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). 

22 For example, an appellant may allege that he was removed in violation of § 2302(b)(8) for disclosing to his supervisor his belief that a 

practice at the agency endangered public health. In the same appeal, he also may allege that he was 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 his § 2302(b)(9) claim, but prevail on his (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.”

23 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.

24 In FY 2020, 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 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 29 0 2 31

Corrective Action 

Ordered, 2, 4%

Corrective Action 

Not Ordered -

Agency Would 

Have Taken Same 

Action, 13, 22%

Corrective Action 

Not Ordered - No 

Protected 

Disclosure, 18, 

31%

Corrective Action 

Not Ordered - No 

Contributing 

Factor, 13, 22%

Reprisal Claim 

Withdrawn, 1, 2%

Miscellaneous 

Results, 11, 19%

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

Adjudicated on the Merits in the Regional and Field Offices
50 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

However, Figure5 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.”25 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 regional and field offices 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.”26 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.27 Figure 6 also includes IRA appeals that were 

dismissed without prejudice.28 In addition, as in OAA appeals, 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.

Figure 7 depicts the resolution of § 2302(b)(8) 

claims within the 71 IRA appeals adjudicated 

on the merits in the ROs/FOs. It includes the 

outcomes of the 44 IRA appeals adjudicated on 

the merits with a § 2302(b)(8) claim only and 

the 27 IRA appeals adjudicated on the merits 

with both §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) claims, as 

referenced in Figure 6.29 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 

25 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.

26 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3).

27 In Figure 6, within the category of “Dismissed, Other Grounds,” the 21 IRA appeals in which a violation of § 2302(b)(9) only was 

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

28 Note that DWOP cases are listed here for completeness, but do they not reflect the final outcomes of whistleblower issues. DWOP 

cases can be refiled for final review of these issues.

29 In FY 2020, there were no IRA appeals adjudicated on the merits in which a § 2302(b)(8) claim was raised and corrective action was not 

ordered because there was no personnel action; thus, Figure 7 does not include a category for “Corrective Action Not Ordered – No 

Personnel Action.”

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 86 101 24 27 113 44 395

Section 2302(b)(9) Only 2 2 2 0 21 8 35

Both sections 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) 32 19 4 3 44 27 129

Corrective 

Action 

Ordered, 12, 

17%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered -

Agency Would 

Have Taken 

Same Action, 

28, 40%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Protected 

Disclosure, 23, 

32%

Corrective 

Action Not 

Ordered - No 

Contributing 

Factor, 7, 10%

Miscellaneous 

Results, 1, 1%

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

Appeals Adjudicated on the Merits in the Regional and 

Field Offices
51 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 35 IRA 

appeals adjudicated on the merits in 

ROs/FOs. This includes the outcomes of

the 8 IRA appeals adjudicated on the 

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

the 27 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 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.

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 2020 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 

now 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.30 In FY 2020, the Office of the Clerk of the Board 

granted 5 requests to withdraw PFRs in cases that involved §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9) claims.

30 https://www.mspb.gov/MSPBSEARCH/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1515773&version=1521400&application=ACROBAT

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

3 32 0 0 35

47

95

142

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

OAA IRA Total

Figure 9: Petitions for Review Received in Appeals with 

Claims Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and/or (b)(9)
52 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 2020 case processing information. 

In FY 2020, MSPB processed 5,473 total cases (not including ALJ and original jurisdiction cases at 

HQ). Seventy-four percent of initial appeals (including addendum cases) were processed in 120 days or 

less.31 

Due to the lack of a quorum for all of FY 2020, MSPB issued no decisions from HQ. Therefore, we 

will not report timeliness information for processing PFR cases at HQ. However, 18 PFR cases were 

withdrawn by order of the Clerk of the Board under a policy begun 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 (assuming a quorum exists) 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.

31 In June 2017, Congress set a 180-day limit for MSPB AJ’s to issue decisions in VA adverse action cases (38 U.S.C. § 714(d). 
53 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

33 In accordance with the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experiences Act (IDEA), Pub. L. 115-336. 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

Office of the General Counsel 

1615 M Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20419 

Phone: (202) 653-6772; Fax: (202) 653-6203: E-Mail: Tristan.Leavitt@mspbgov 

General Counsel 

January 11, 2020 

The Honorable Russell Vought 

Director 

Office of Management and Budget 

725 I 7th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

RE: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report 

Dear Director Vought, 

In accordance with sections 3 (b) and ( d) of the 21st Century Integrated Digi ta! 

Experience Act (21st Century IDEA), I am pleased to provide the Merit Systems 

Protection Board's (MSPB) report on modernizing our public-facing digital services. 

MSPB has two primary websites for public engagement: our electronic filing 

website, e-Appeal Online, at https://e-appeal.mspb.gov, and our agency website at 

https://www.mspb.gov. Both websites are part of a broader information technology (IT) 

modernization effort that began in fiscal year (FY) 2018 with requirements development 

for updating and consolidating our legacy case management, document assembly, and 

document management systems, among others. Our websites rely on and interact with 

the documents and information in these legacy systems. As such, each is a priority for 

modernization to meet the requirements in section 3(a) of 21st Century IDEA. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2019, MSPB contracted with Tyler Technologies, a 

FedRAMP-certified provider of case management software and IT services, to begin 

this effort. Although the project was paused for several months in FY 2020 as we 

adjusted our operations in response to the pandemic, we made additional progress. To 

date we have wireframed the entire application and completed development sprints 

covering a substantial portion of our adjudicatory business processes, including a 

public-facing electronic filing portal that will replace the existing e-Appeal Online. We 

anticipate pilot testing the new system in calendar year 2021, with full implementation 

in FY 2022. The projected cost for the modernization of our electronic filing website 

is $423,000. 

MSPB began modernizing its agency website in FY 2019 with the goal of 

adopting U.S. Web Design Standards, improving search functionality using Search.gov, 

leveraging the General Services Administration's Digital Analytics Program, and 

providing an updated, consistent appearance across devices, including mobile. The new 

website was released to agency employees for testing during FY 2020, and we expect to 

Appendix C: Modernization of Public-facing Digital Services Report32
54 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 

 May 28, 2021
55 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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.”33 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.34 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.35

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. 

MSPB Offices and Their Functions 

MSPB is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has six regional and two field offices located 

throughout the United States. The agency is currently authorized to employ 235 FTEs to conduct and 

support its statutory duties. 

33 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). 

34 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); USERRA, (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. 

35 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.
56 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

The Board members, consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, 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 Chairman, by statute, is the chief executive and 

administrative officer. Except for the EEO Director who reports directly to the Chairman, the 

Directors of the following offices report to the Chairman through the Executive Director. 

The Office of the Administrative Law Judge adjudicates and issues 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 2020, the 

functions of this office were performed by ALJs at the Federal Trade Commission and the 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 and Privacy 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 

review of 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 Services (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 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 

automated information technology systems, infrastructure, enterprise hardware and software 

applications, and cybersecurity programs to help MSPB manage its caseload efficiently and carry out its 

administrative and research responsibilities. 
57 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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 preparing MSPB’s strategic and performance plans and performance reports required by GPRAMA. 

The Office of Regional Operations oversees the agency’s six ROs and two FOs that receive and 

process appeals and related cases. It also manages MSPB’s MAP. AJs in the ROs/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 

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 
58 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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, stable 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 ensure due process and result 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 

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 were prohibited (PPPs) because they were contrary to 

merit system values.36 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; 

36 5 U.S.C. § 2301 and § 2302, respectively.
59 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

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.37 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.38 

 

37 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).”

38 The NDAA for FY 2020, (Pub. L. 116-92).
60 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

List of Common Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution 

AES Annual Employee Survey 

AJ Administrative Judge 

ALJ Administrative Law Judge 

APHIS USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

APR-APP Annual Performance Report and Annual Performance Plan 

AR MSPB Annual Report 

BFS Department of Treasury’s Bureau of Financial Services

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 

COVID-19 Novel coronavirus 

CRS Congressional Research Service

CSC Civil Service Commission

CSRA Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 

DOI Department of 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 Resource Integration

EO Executive Order 

FAM MSPB’s Financial and Administrative Management

FAQs Frequently Asked Questions 

FDS Federal Data Strategy

FedRAMP Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program 

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FLRA Federal Labor Relations Authority 

FO MSPB Field office

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

HC Human Capital 

HR Human Resources 

HQ Headquarters 

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 
61 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

IS Internal Survey 

IT Information Technology 

MAP Mediation Appeals Program 

MPS Merit Principles Survey

MSP Merit System Principles

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

NBC DOI National Business Center

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

PWS Performance Work Statement

RFI Request for Information 

RFQ Request for Quote 

RIF Reduction in Force 

RO Regional office 

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

SES Senior Executive Service

SHCP Strategic Human Capital Plan (or planning) 

TBD To be determined 

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
62 MSPB APR-APP for FYs 2020 - 2022 May 28, 2021 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

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

www.mspb.gov - @USMSPB on Twitter