Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit on this ground. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent an appealable administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate that element of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to suspend him pending an investigation into allegations that he was involved in acts of corruption and abuse of authority, and that he invited and accepted bribes from beneficiaries. He also claimed that he had been coerced into opting for EVR and alleged due process violations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the application as not receivable.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT does not have jurisdiction to consider applications that were not subject to administrative review where such review is a mandatory requirement under the Staff Rules. When a staff member claims that he or she has been coerced into resigning, the burden is on the staff member to prove the wrongful acts of the Administration. A staff member¡¯s unilateral decision to request Early Voluntary Retirement (EVR) and the Agency¡¯s acceptance of such a request does not give rise to a discretionary administrative decision for the purpose of appeal.