Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-078) and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding her return to her G-4 post were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this conclusion rendered moot the Applicant¡¯s petition to produce new evidence, which was not in compliance with the strict statutory limits to allow that kind of application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions to return her to her former G-4 post, after not being selected for two G-5 posts, and to award her compensation in the amount of six months¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed her application, finding that the decision to return her to her former post was the direct and logical consequence of her non-selection for the G-5 posts and that her compensation was adequate.
Legal Principle(s)
Without regard to the procedural regularity or irregularity of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Orders related to the scope of the parties¡¯ submissions, there are no grounds to consider that the claimant¡¯s right to due process was violated by a judgment by default or for not considering her arguments.