Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the text of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence did not demonstrate, in and of itself, that the Appellant had a right to payment of the entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the circumstances or conditions of employment of other staff members were relevant to her situation and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found no error of law or error of fact, manifest or otherwise, on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the Appellant¡¯s claims for payment of outstanding travel subsistence allowance (TSA) as well as the additional issues she raised had not been the subject of decision review and thus were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.