Court Opinion

ID: 9373793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:27.340267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.022595
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JUNE T. SOOTER,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        CH-1221-12-0588-B-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,                         DATE: April 1, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           June T. Sooter, Lebanon, Kentucky, pro se.

           Frances C. Silva, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the remand initial decision
     in this individual right of action (IRA) appeal, granting in part her motion for
     consequential damages and attorney fees. Generally, we grant petitions such as
     this one only in the following circumstances:          the initial dec ision contains
     erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous

     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                        2

     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
     the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
     the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
     involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
     the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despi te
     the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
     After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
     has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
     review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the remand
     initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         In an initial decision in the underlying appeal, the administrative judge
     granted corrective action and denied interim relief. MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-
     12-0588-W-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 59, Initial Decision at 10-11.             The
     administrative judge found that, even if the agency had not terminated the
     appellant, her temporary appointment would have since expired. Id. On review,
     the Board found no basis upon which to disturb these findings. Nevertheless, the
     Board remanded the appeal for further development regarding the proper
     corrective action for a temporary employee. Sooter v. Department of Commerce,
     MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-12-0588-W-1, Remand Order (April 2, 2015).
¶3         On remand, the administrative judge notified the parties that the matter
     before her was an addendum proceeding to address corrective action, damages,
     and attorneys’ fees. Remand Appeal File (RAF), Tab 5. Thus, she ordered the
     parties to submit a request for any corrective action, damages (including back
     wages), and attorneys’ fees in the form of an affidavit.       Id.   In addition, the
     appellant was ordered to state the reasons why she was entitled to recover the
     amount sought, and to provide any supporting documentation. Id.
                                                                                           3

¶4         In accordance with the Board’s remand order, the administrative judge
     developed the record regarding the proper corrective action. The administrative
     judge, moreover, adjudicated the claims of costs and attorneys’ fees at the same
     time, rather than addressing them in a separate addendum proceeding.
     Specifically, the administrative judge held a status conference on November 3,
     2015, to address any outstanding issues, and she identified those damages on
     which the parties agreed. 2 RAF, Tab 16. The appellant submitted an affidavit
     claiming a total of $5,351.91 in damages, whereas the agency claimed that the
     appellant was owed $1,712.61, minus appropriate deductions. RAF, Tabs 6, 14.
¶5         Based on the evidence submitted by the parties, the administrative judge
     found that the appellant’s claim that she would have rema ined employed beyond
     her not-to-exceed (NTE) date of August 24, 2010, was purely speculative and
     unsupported by the evidence. RAF, Tab 20, Remand Initial Decision (RID) at 4.
     The administrative judge observed that the agency submitted credible and
     unrebutted evidence showing that on October 22, 2010, it permanently closed the
     office in which the appellant previously worked and then closed another office in
     the same state on November 5, 2010, leaving only a “skeleton staff.”                The
     administrative judge also found that both the number of crew leaders, like the
     appellant, and their assigned work hours, diminished substantially from July 24
     through August 28, 2010, at both locations. RID at 4. Thus, the administrative
     judge found that, although the appellant contended that she would have been one
     of the crew leaders selected to remain past the final week, there was n o evidence
     to support her claim that she would have continued employmen t beyond her NTE
     date. Id.
¶6         Regarding the appellant’s claim for damages, the administrative judge
     found that the appellant was entitled to consequential damages, which were
     limited to reimbursement for her specific losses and expenses resulting from the
     2
       While the administrative judge indicates that she held “multi ple” status conferences,
     she only has provided a summary for the November 3, 2015 conference. RAF, Tab 16.
                                                                                       4

     agency’s unjustified retaliatory conduct. RID at 4; see 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A).
     The administrative judge reviewed the evidence concerning back pay and the
     status of the two closed offices, as well as the number of crew leaders receiving
     pay during the relevant period of time, and concluded that the agency owed the
     appellant $888.83, plus the appropriate interest as set by the Office of Personnel
     Management. RID at 5-7, 11. Additionally, the administrative judge found that
     the appellant was entitled to reimbursement of $342.87 for mileage, and $99.60 in
     faxing and copying fees, for a total of $442.47.      RID at 8-9, 11.    Regarding
     attorney fees, the administrative judge granted the $775.81 fees requested by the
     appellant. RID at 11-12.
¶7        The appellant has filed a petition for review. Remand Petition for Review
     (RPFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response. RPFR File, Tab 3.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶8        On review, the appellant has requested “a complete review of this case,”
     and challenges the proceedings related to the processing of the underlying appeal.
     For instance, she asserts that the administrative judge who handled her appeal
     after initial settlement efforts were unsuccessful was biased, as shown by the way
     the administrative judge “cut [her] off,” did not allow her to ask questions of
     agency witnesses during the hearing, told her she was not enti tled to attorney
     fees, and allowed the agency to change its defense as to the charged misconduct.
     RPFR File, Tab 1. The Board generally will not consider an argument raised for
     the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and
     material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence.
     Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980).
¶9        The appellant should have raised these arguments during the processing of
     the initial appeal. Because the appellant is raising these arguments for the first
     time on review of the remand initial decision, without a showing that her
                                                                                         5

      arguments are based on new and material evidence not previously available
      despite her due diligence, we need not address them. Id.
¶10         To the extent her arguments can be interpreted as alleging bias by the
      administrative judge during the remand proceedings, the Board has lon g held that,
      in making a claim of bias or prejudice against an administrative judge, a party
      must overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity that accompanies
      administrative adjudicators. Oliver v. Department of Transportation, 1 M.S.P.R.
      382, 386 (1980). An allegation of bias by an administrative judge must be raised
      as soon as practicable after a party has reasonable cause to believe that gro unds
      for disqualification exist, and must be supported by an affidavit .      Lee v. U.S.
      Postal Service, 48 M.S.P.R. 274, 280-82 (1991).           An administrative judge’s
      conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new adjudication
      only if her comments or actions evidence “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism
      that would make fair judgment impossible.” Bieber v. Department of the Army,
      287 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Liteky v. United States,
      510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)).
¶11         Here, the appellant’s allegations regarding the conduct of the administrative
      judge do not evidence antagonism or favoritism. First, she has not supported her
      claims of bias with an affidavit.           Second, her dissatisfaction with the
      administrative judge’s adjudicatory rulings does not establish bias. See Coufal v.
      Department of Justice, 98 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶¶ 10-11 (2004) (finding that an
      administrative judge’s rulings alone are insufficient to establish bias) ; RPFR File,
      Tab 1 at 6. Third, we have reviewed the record and find no evidence to support
      her bias allegations. Therefore, we find that the appellant’s claims of bias fail to
      provide a basis to disturb the remand initial decision.
¶12         The   appellant   also   challenges   the   administrative   judge’s   findings
      concerning her back pay and her reliance upon pay documents submitted by the
      agency regarding the amount of pay she would have likely received during the
      relevant period. The appellant appears to argue that these documents should have
                                                                                        6

      been excluded because they were produced for a first time on remand, long after
      her 2010 termination. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6.
¶13        However, as stated above, because the appellant’s position was a temporary
      NTE appointment and there was a question as to whether she would have
      remained employed until the end of her NTE period, we remanded this appeal for
      further development of the record. Thus, any documents provided by the agency
      concerning the relevant pay periods and the closing dates of the agency’s offices
      in the appellant’s state of employment were relevant to the question of whether
      she would have remained employed through the end of her NTE appointment.
      Therefore, the administrative judge properly admitted the agency’s documents
      into the record. Moreover, while the appellant challenges the reliance upon t he
      agency’s evidence regarding back pay and asserts that she should have received
      $3,262.63 in lost wages, plus appropriate interest, she has provided no evidence,
      either below or on review, in support of this claim. Accordingly, we find no
      reason to disturb the administrative judge’s determination that the appellant is
      owed $888.83, plus interest at the appropriate rate, in back pay.
¶14        Finally, the appellant contends that she is entitled to an additional
      $3,250.80 “as payment for the wrongful termination an d the ensuing mental,
      physical, and emotional anguish.” RPFR File, Tab 1 at 6. However, as was set
      forth in the Board’s remand order, an appellant who prevails in an IRA appeal is
      entitled to status quo ante relief that includes the following:      cancelling the
      retaliatory personnel action; reinstatement to her former position or to another
      substantially equivalent position, as appropriate; back pay; interest on back pay;
      and other employment benefits that she would have received had the action not
      occurred.   Schnell v. Department of the Army, 114 M.S.P.R. 83, ¶ 18 (2010);
      Sooter, MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-12-0588-W-1, Remand Order (April 2,
      2015). An appellant who prevails also is eligible for relief that exceeds the status
      quo ante, including medical costs incurred, travel expenses, other reasonably
      foreseeable consequential damages, and may request that disciplinary action be
                                                                                          7

      imposed against agency officials who engaged in retaliatory conduct. Samble v.
      Department of Defense, 98 M.S.P.R. 502, ¶ 15 (2005); Newcastle v. Department
      of the Treasury, 94 M.S.P.R. 242, ¶ 8 (2003); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202(b).
¶15        Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has
      determined that the term “consequential damages” in 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g) is
      limited to reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs to make an individual whole for
      an improper personnel action but does not include nonpecuniary damages. Bohac
      v. Department of Agriculture, 239 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Applying
      Bohac, the Board has explained that, to receive a consequential damages award,
      an appellant must prove that she incurred consequential damages and that her
      claimed damages were reasonable, foreseeable, and causally related to the
      agency’s prohibited personnel practice.     King v. Department of the Air Force,
      122 M.S.P.R. 531, ¶ 7 (2015); Johnston v. Department of the Treasury,
      100 M.S.P.R. 78, ¶ 13 (2005). The appellant did not request medical expenses or
      provide medical documentation below, and therefore we decline to award such
      expenses on review. 3
¶16        Here, the administrative judge properly allowed the parties to further
      develop the record, as instructed, before determining appropriate corrective action
      and damages.     RAF, Tabs 5-6, 8-15, 17-19.        The administrative judge then
      thoroughly reviewed the evidence and made reasoned findings based on the
      record.   See RID.      Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to disturb the
      damages awarded in the remand initial decision.

      3
        To the extent that the appellant is seeking compensatory damages, her claim predates
      the enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which allows for such
      damages. King v. Department of the Air Force, 119 M.S.P.R. 663, ¶¶ 1, 15 (2013). As
      such, the Board is without authority to award the appellant compensatory damages. Id.,
      ¶¶ 20-21.
                                                                                          8

                                            ORDER
¶17         We ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back pay,
      interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel
      Management’s regulations, consequential damages, and attorneys’ fees 4 no later
      than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. We ORDER the appellant to
      cooperate in good faith in the agency’s efforts to calculate the amount of back
      pay, interest, and benefits due, and to provide all necessary information the
      agency requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about
      the amount of back pay, interest due, and/or other benefits, we ORDER the
      agency to pay the appellant the undisputed amount no later than 60 calendar days
      after the date of this decision.
¶18         We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
      when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
      taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
      the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶19         No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
      carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
      with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant
      believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
      should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
      fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
      any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶20         For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
      Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and
      Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation

      4
       The agency shall pay the ordered amount of attorneys’ fees directly to the appellant,
      not to the attorneys as set forth in the remand initial decision. RID at 11-12; see
      Rumsey v. Department of Justice, 866 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that,
      under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1221(g)(1)(B)-(g)(2), an award of fees is property of the appellant,
      not the attorney).
                                                                                      9

necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
made within the 60-day period set forth above.

                           NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
      A copy of the decision will be referred to the Special Counsel “to
investigate and take appropriate action under [5 U.S.C.] section 1215,” based on
the determination that “there is reason to believe that a current employee may
have committed a prohibited personnel practice” under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). 5 U.S.C. § 1221(f)(3). Please note
that while any Special Counsel investigation related to this decision is pending,
“no disciplinary action shall be taken against any employee for any alleged
prohibited activity under investigation or for any related activity without the
approval of the Special Counsel.” 5 U.S.C. § 1214(f).

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file.              5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within th eir
jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all

5
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                      10

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition   to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
                                                                                  11

      (2) Judicial   or   EEOC     review   of   cases   involving    a   claim   of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.     5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017).            If you have a
representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before
you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days
after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling
condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and
to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                                                                                     12

                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant     to   the   Whistleblower       Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in s ection
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),
(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 6   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

6
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                13

      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

FOR THE BOARD:                                    /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
                                 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
                                           Civilian Pay Operations

                          DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST

The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay
pursuant to 5 CFR 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following
checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may
substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.
NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by vendor
pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay.
☐       1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please
identify the specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.
Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket
comments as to why the documentation is not applicable:
☐      2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.
☐      3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.
☐      4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s
until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***
☐      5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until
notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***
☐      6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).
☐      7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the
employee in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment.
Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc. Also, include
record of any unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation, CSRS/FERS
retirement annuity payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums, or severance pay
received by the employee upon separation.
Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority
under 5 U.S.C. 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment
they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The
annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave ceiling
will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as
ordered by the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts .
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise
information describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
    a. Employee name and social security number.
   b. Detailed explanation of request.
    c. Valid agency accounting.
   d. Authorized signature (Table 63)
    e. If interest is to be included.
    f. Check mailing address.
   g. Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
   h. Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to
be collected. (if applicable)
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement. (if applicable)
2. Copies of SF-50's (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and
amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address
to return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of
the type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual
Leave to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay
Period and required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump
Sum Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
   a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
   b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
   c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.
If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.