Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that joint representation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary reply, the Appellant was estopped from raising the matter on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had not been a violation of the OIOS Investigations Manual. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that OIOS failed to provide rules or procedures to govern the case assessment process was baseless. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the Administration¡¯s response to the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was not a reviewable administrative decision and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would not review it. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that there was a procedural irregularity related to the signature and date of completion on the OIOS assessment report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that only substantial procedural errors can render the administrative decision unlawful and the Appellant failed to explain how such a mistake affected the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the OIOS decision not to investigate the Appellant¡¯s complaint was reasonable and lawfully taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.