Opinion ID: 184714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The National Appeals Division Decision

Text: 14 Appellant then sought relief through the USDA's administrative procedures, which culminated in a March 1995 decision of the National Appeals Division (NAD) of the USDA. See Determination of the National Appeals Division, Appeal of Clifford Skiles, Jr. (Mar. 13, 1995) (NAD Decision), reprinted in A.A. 5. 15 The NAD noted the existence of, and considered, the OIG Report, see NAD Decision at 1, reprinted in A.A. 5, but found in favor of appellee on both the PAP and the DAP claims. With respect to the PAP claim, the NAD held that the contracts in question cannot be revised and program payments cannot be issued that exceed what was actually earned under the contracts signed by Appellant and approved by [the] CCC. Id. at 7, reprinted in A.A. 11. With respect to the DAP claim, the NAD agreed that the data used in calculating the yield was somewhat aged; however, the NAD found that the data used was the best data available at that time and reflects the cropping conditions of the geographical location where the crop was grown. Id. at 8, reprinted in A.A. 12. Finally, as for the payment rate, the NAD found no conclusive evidence that the rate was improperly established or that it did not reflect actual market conditions at that time. Id.