Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to consider the issue. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or failure of jurisdiction on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of any prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the applicable time limit rendered moot the Appellant¡¯s argument that there were exceptional circumstances, but that, nevertheless, there was nothing in the arguments advanced by the Appellant to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that there existed exceptional circumstance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade it that there was any merit in his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.