MSPB is an independent, quasijudicial executive agency created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Its mission is to ensure that (1) federal employees are protected against abuses by their agencies’ management, (2) executive branch agencies make employment decisions in accordance with merit system principles, and (3) federal merit systems are kept free of prohibited personnel practices. In large part, MSPB is to pursue its mission by hearing and deciding appeals by federal employees of actions taken against them by their agencies. Initially, an employee files his or her appeal at one of MSPB’s regional or field offices. The appeal is then to be heard and decided by an administrative judge. The decision becomes final in 35 days unless one of the parties to the appeal files a petition for review to the board members or MSPB reopens the appeal on its own motion. In such cases, the petition for review is to be processed at MSPB headquarters. The board members’ decision constitutes the final administrative action unless the appeal involves allegations of discrimination, in which case the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may become involved. An employee who is dissatisfied with the board members’ final decision may appeal it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or, if allegations of discrimination are involved, bring the case before a U.S. district court. MSPB’s three-member bipartisan Board consists of a chairman, a vice chairman, and a member, all of whom are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate to serve overlapping, nonrenewable 7-year terms. MSPB’s fiscal year 1994 appropriation was $24.7 million. As of the end of fiscal year 1994, it had 289 employees. Under Public Law 103-424, signed by the president on October 29, 1994, MSPB was reauthorized for a period of 3 years. To assess whether MSPB is accomplishing its statutory mission through the appeals process in a fair and timely manner, we developed a mail questionnaire to obtain the views of practitioners who had represented federal employees or agencies before MSPB during the 2-year period ending September 1993 (see app. I). The results of our survey can be projected to the populations from which the survey respondents were selected. We analyzed MSPB’s case processing performance reports to determine whether MSPB met its case processing guidelines at the regional and headquarters levels in fiscal years 1991 through 1994. Additionally, we analyzed data on the extent to which MSPB’s final decisions were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the court’s disposition of these appeals. To determine what accountability mechanisms MSPB had in place to provide its employees the merit system protections that MSPB was created to uphold, we reviewed the agency’s EEO and internal oversight activities designed to protect its employees against workplace discrimination, mismanagement, abuse, and improper personnel practices. In doing so, we reviewed MSPB’s EEO policy, procedures, and processes and compared its provisions for internal oversight to those of 10 other federal entities that are roughly comparable to MSPB in budget and staff size. Further, we developed and mailed a questionnaire to all MSPB employees as of May 12, 1994, asking for their views on selected aspects of the agency’s EEO operations and internal oversight activities (see app. II). To determine what actions MSPB had taken to foster a work environment that is based on trust, respect, and fairness, we interviewed MSPB’s Chief Operating Officer, EEO director, and members of a task force charged with proposing actions for implementing MSPB’s 1992 vision statement. Further, our MSPB employee questionnaire asked employees for their views on how successful their agencies had been in fostering such an environment (see app. II). We compared MSPB employees’ views of their work environment to those reported by federal employees in a 1992 OPM governmentwide survey. More information on our scope and methodology is presented in appendix III. MSPB’s chairman provided us written comments on a draft of this report by letter dated July 14, 1995. A summary of his comments is presented on page 19, and they are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI. We did our review between November 1993 and January 1995. It was done in the Washington, D.C., area in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In each of the practitioner groups we surveyed, the percentage of respondents who expressed the opinion that MSPB has been successful in accomplishing its mission was higher than the percentage who indicated that it has not been successful. As shown in table 1, the percentages varied among the practitioner groups. For example, the responses from agency general counsels were the most favorable: 89 percent of the general counsels responding to our survey believed MSPB has been very or generally successful in accomplishing its mission; none of these respondents believed MSPB has been very or generally unsuccessful. By comparison, the responses from union officials were the least favorable: 45 percent of the union officials expressing an opinion indicated that MSPB has been very or generally successful in accomplishing its mission, while 23 percent indicated that it has been very or generally unsuccessful. The responses from the practitioner groups reflect a general view that MSPB has been fair in processing federal employee appeals at the regional and headquarters levels. As shown in table 2, the percentage of respondents who indicated that MSPB’s appellate process at the regional level was almost always or generally fair ranged from a high of 93 percent among agency general counsels to a low of 59 percent among union officials. The percentage of respondents who viewed the process at the regional level as very or generally unfair ranged from a low of 0 percent among agency general counsels and employee and labor-management relations representatives to a high of 26 percent among union officials. As for the fairness of MSPB’s appellate process at the headquarters level, table 3 shows that the percentage of respondents indicating that the process was almost always or generally fair ranged from a high of 95 percent among employee and labor-management relations representatives to a low of 46 percent among private attorneys. The percentage of respondents indicating that the appellate process at the headquarters level was very or generally unfair ranged from a low of 0 percent among agency general counsels to a high of 29 percent among private attorneys. Another measure of MSPB’s fairness in processing employee appeals is the rate at which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed MSPB’s final decisions. As shown in table 4, during the 4-year period ending September 1994, 1,422 MSPB final decisions were appealed to the court and adjudicated on the merits. Of that amount, 1,287 cases (91 percent) were affirmed, while 116 cases (8 percent) were either reversed (3 percent) or remanded (5 percent) to MSPB for further processing. According to a recognized expert on the administrative redress system for federal employees, the affirmation rate of MSPB’s decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is much higher than the rate at which other federal circuits affirm the decisions of other federal administrative tribunals. Guidelines for the length of time MSPB should take to process cases differ at the regional and headquarters levels. Guidelines at the regional level stipulate that cases be processed in no more than 120 days. This guideline was imposed by MSPB itself and is identical to the time limit in the statute (5 U.S.C. 7702(a)(1)) requiring MSPB to decide appeals that involve allegations of discrimination within 120 days of the filing of the appeal. At the headquarters level, cases are to be processed within 110 days. This guideline also is self-imposed; the chairman explained that the 110-day guideline at the headquarters level represents a goal to strive toward rather than a hard and fast requirement for processing petitions for review (PFR). Further, MSPB’s written policy states that “it will attempt to complete action on petitions for review of initial decisions within 110 days.” Over the 4-year period ending September 1994, the regional offices took an average of 78 days to process initial employee appeals and almost always met their 120-day case processing guideline. Most survey respondents were either very satisfied or generally satisfied with the actual amount of time MSPB took to process cases at the regional level (see app. I, question 22). Satisfaction with actual processing time ranged from 87 percent for employee and labor-management relations representatives to 67 percent for agency general counsels. Dissatisfaction with processing time among the five practitioner groups ranged from a high of 18 percent for agency general counsels to a low of 7 percent for agency attorneys and representatives. As shown in table 5, of the initial appeals processed at the regional office level in fiscal years 1991 through 1994, 3 percent, on average, were not processed within the 120-day guideline. During the same 4-year period, headquarters took an average of 170 days to process PFR cases. Although headquarters met its guideline less often than the regional offices met theirs, its processing time had been improving until fiscal year 1994. Most survey respondents were very or generally satisfied with the actual processing time at headquarters (see app. I, question 26). Satisfaction with actual processing time ranged from 68 percent for the agency attorneys and representatives to 44 percent for agency general counsels. Dissatisfaction among the five practitioner groups with actual processing time at the headquarters level ranged from a high of 31 percent for private attorneys and agency general counsels to a low of 20 percent for agency attorneys and representatives. As shown in table 6, the percentage of PFR cases processed within the 110-day guideline at the headquarters level over the 4-year period steadily increased from 52 percent in fiscal year 1991 to 78 percent in fiscal year 1993, but it dropped to 61 percent in fiscal year 1994.