# Xanthe M Garcia v. Department of Veterans Affairs

> Merit Systems Protection Board · September 19, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10589397

## Case

- **Court:** Merit Systems Protection Board
- **Decided:** September 19, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10589397

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “the SF-50 is not a legally operative document controlling on its face an employee’s status and rights”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

XANTHE MONETTE GARCIA , DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, SF-0714-18-0445-I-1

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: September 19, 2024
AFFAIRS,
Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Sheila Brown , North Hills, California, for the appellant.

Maya Soloway , Los Angeles, California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman
Henry J. Kerner, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
sustained her removal. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the
appellant’s petition for review. We REVERSE the initial decision’s findings
regarding the agency’s removal action and find that the removal action is NOT

1
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2

SUSTAINED as it is not in accordance with law. We AFFIRM the administrative
judge’s findings regarding the suspension action.

BACKGROUND
In August 2002, the agency appointed the appellant to the excepted service
position of Licensed Vocational Nurse with its Greater Los Angeles Healthcare
System. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 7, 133-34. On February 9, 2018, the
agency issued the appellant a 14-day suspension based on charges of absence
without leave and inappropriate conduct. Id. at 91-97. On February 26, 2018, it
proposed her removal under the authority of 38 U.S.C. § 714 based on charges of
failure to properly carry out [her] duties as Licensed Vocational Nurse (two
specifications) and inappropriate conduct (one specification). Id. at 28-30. The
appellant served the 14-day suspension beginning March 4, 2018, and returned to
duty on March 18, 2018. Id. at 85-86. On March 21, 2018, the deciding official
sustained the appellant’s removal, effective April 9, 2018. Id. at 21, 23-26.
On April 13, 2018, the appellant filed the instant Board appeal challenging
her 14-day suspension and removal. IAF, Tab 1. In an order summarizing the
prehearing conference, the administrative judge notified the appellant that the
Board does not have jurisdiction over suspensions of less than 15 days. IAF, Tab
20 at 2. Following a hearing on her removal appeal, the administrative judge
issued an initial decision on August 27, 2018, sustaining the agency’s charges and
the penalty of removal. IAF, Tab 24, Initial Decision (ID) at 10.
On October 2, 2018, the appellant submitted a petition for review of the
initial decision via e-Appeal, along with an explanation related to the untimely
filing of her petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3-4.
Concerning her reasons for requesting review, the appellant reargues that she did
not commit the misconduct charged by the agency in its removal action and
suggests that the administrative judge erred in analyzing the hearing testimony.
Id. at 5-7. The agency has responded, requesting that the Board dismiss the
3

appellant’s petition for review based on untimeliness, and arguing that she did not
show any material factual error in the initial decision or any other criterion for
granting a petition for review. PFR File, Tab 3.

ANALYSIS

We waive the time limit for the filing of the appellant’s petition for review.
A petition for review generally must be filed within 35 days after the date
of the issuance of the initial decision or, if the appellant shows that the initial
decision was received more than 5 days after the initial decision was issued,
within 30 days after the date the appellant received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.114(e). The Board will waive this time limit only upon a showing of good
cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). The length of the delay is a
factor that must be considered in every good cause determination, and a minimal
delay favors a finding of good cause. See Walls v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 29 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To establish good cause for the
untimely filing of a petition, a party must show that she exercised due diligence
or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of the case. See Alonzo
v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). To determine
whether an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of
the delay, the reasonableness of her excuse and her showing of due diligence,
whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented evidence of the
existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to comply
with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune which similarly
shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely file her petition. See
Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d,
79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table).
We find that the extremely minimal nature of the delay, along with the
appellant’s explanation for the delay, supports a finding of good cause in this
case. The appellant concedes that she received the initial decision within 5 days
4

of its issuance on August 27, 2018. ID; PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. Thus, her petition
for review was due on October 1, 2018. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The date of
filing for pleadings filed via e–Appeal is the date of electronic submission. 5
C.F.R. § 1201.4(l). All pleadings filed via e–Appeal are time stamped with
Eastern Time, but the timeliness of a pleading will be determined based on the
time zone from which the pleading was submitted. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14( l)(1). The
appellant’s petition for review, submitted via e-Appeal on October 2, 2018, is
time-stamped 03:10:47. PFR File, Tab 1. As her address of record at the time
was in the Pacific Time Zone, we find that her appeal was submitted at 12:10:47
a.m. Pacific Time and, thus, was untimely by only 10 minutes.
Furthermore, the appellant, who is represented by her union representative,
stated that she filed her petition for review without the assistance of her union
representative after her union representative informed her that she was having
trouble accessing e-Appeal. IAF, Tab 8 at 3; PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. Although an
appellant is generally responsible for any purported deficiencies related to her
representation, see Reaves v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 92 M.S.P.R. 352,
¶ 7 (2002), we find that the appellant’s actions of submitting a petition for review
herself via e-Appeal only 10 minutes after the deadline demonstrated due
diligence under the circumstances. Accordingly, we find good cause for her
untimely filing.
If good cause has been demonstrated, the Board will determine whether the
agency has shown it would be prejudiced by a waiver of the time limit. See
Moorman, 68 M.S.P.R. at 63. The agency has neither indicated nor made any
showing of prejudice caused by the 10-minute filing delay. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4.
Therefore, we waive the time limit for the filing of the appellant’s petition for
review.
5

The agency’s removal action must be reversed.
Appointments of medical professionals in the Veterans Health
Administration are governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7401. Individuals appointed
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7401(3) are hybrid employees, which is a category of
agency employees subject to both Title 38 and Title 5 of the United States Code.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs v. Federal Labor Relations Authority , 9 F.3d
123, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see James v. Von Zemenszky, 284 F.3d 1310, 1314
(Fed. Cir. 2002). Since the issuance of the initial decision in this case, the Board
issued a precedential Opinion and Order in Richardson v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 2023 MSPB 1, ¶¶ 15-28, holding that the agency does not have the
authority under 38 U.S.C. § 714 to remove a hybrid employee appointed under 38
U.S.C. § 7401(3). We reasoned that hybrid employees are covered by 38 U.S.C.
§ 7403(f)(3), which provides that “all matters relating to adverse actions . . . shall
be resolved under the provisions of title 5 as though such individuals had been
appointed under that title.” Id., ¶ 12 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7403(f)(3)).
We find that the appellant was a hybrid employee appointed under 38
U.S.C. § 7401(3). Section (3) of 7401 includes “licensed practical or vocational
nurses,” like the appellant, among other positions. 38 U.S.C. § 7401(3).
Furthermore, the agency has consistently represented in its pleadings that the
appellant was a Title 38 hybrid employee. IAF, Tab 4 at 7, Tab 14 at 5. We note
that the legal authority cited in the appellant’s appointment Standard Form 50
(SF-50) was section (1) of 7401, as opposed to section (3) of 7401; however, we
give little weight to this document for several reasons. IAF, Tab 4 at 131; see
generally Grigsby v. Department of Commerce, 729 F.2d 772, 776 (Fed. Cir.
1984) (holding that “the SF-50 is not a legally operative document controlling on
its face an employee’s status and rights”). First, section (1) of 7401 authorized
the appointments of “physicians, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered
nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-function dental auxiliaries,” and there
is no indication in the record that the appellant held any of these credentials. 38
6

U.S.C. § 7401(1) (September 2003); IAF, Tab 4 at 131. Rather, the SF-50
indicates that her appointment was to the position of Licensed Vocational Nurse,
which is a position listed under section (3) of 7401. Id.; 38 U.S.C. § 7401(3)
(September 2003). Furthermore, the Board generally lacks jurisdiction over the
removal of a medical professional appointed under section (1) of 7401; instead,
those medical professionals are afforded internal agency procedures. See 5
U.S.C. § 7511(b)(10); 38 U.S.C. § 7425(a)(8); Yunus v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the agency notified the
appellant of her Board appeal rights in its removal decision, IAF, Tab 4 at 24,
and, as mentioned above, has conceded that she is a hybrid employee with Board
appeal rights, id. at 4. Accordingly, we find no reason to develop the record
further on this issue and conclude that the appellant was a h ybrid employee
appointed under 38 U.S.C. § 7401(3).
Thus, we find that the agency’s removal action in this case under the
authority of 38 U.S.C. § 714 is not in accordance with law. See Richardson, 2023
MSPB 1, ¶¶ 12-29. An agency action that is not in accordance with law must be
reversed by the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2); Hamilton v. U.S. Postal Service,
58 M.S.P.R. 486, 488 (1993). The appellant need not show that the agency
violated her constitutional due process rights or that the erroneous action was
harmful, i.e., that it prejudiced her rights so that the outcome before the agency
was likely affected. Hamilton, 58 M.S.P.R. at 488; Stephen v. Department of the
Air Force, 47 M.S.P.R. 672, 683-84 (1991); see also Richardson, 2023 MSPB 1,
¶¶ 30-32 (finding that the Board could not sua sponte convert a 38 U.S.C. § 714
removal appeal to a 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 removal appeal because it would be
“inherently unfair”). Accordingly, we reverse the agency’s removal action. 2 If
the agency wants to take an adverse action against the appellant, it must do so in
accordance with the procedures of chapter 75, as required by section 7403(f)(3).
2
Because we agree with the administrative judge that the Board lacks jurisdiction over
a suspension that is not more than 14 days, our decision in this case does not disturb the
agency’s suspension action. IAF, Tab 20 at 2; see 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512(2), 7513(d).
7

ORDER
We ORDER the agency to cancel its removal action and to restore the
appellant effective March 21, 2018. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the
Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no
later than 20 days after the date of this decision.
We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of
back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel
Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this
decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s
efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to
provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the
Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due,
and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed
amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.
We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant
believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
8

are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
made within the 60-day period set forth above.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of
the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
the initial decision on your appeal.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all

3
Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
9

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following
address:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
10

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
11

Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, N.E.
Suite 5SW12G
Washington, D.C. 20507

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)
(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 4 The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

4
The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
12

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following
address:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
Civilian Pay Operations

DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST
The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay
pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following
checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may
substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by
vendor pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay.

☐ 1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the
specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket
comments as to why the documentation is not applicable:

☐ 2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.
☐ 3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.
☐ 4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s
until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards
until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).

☐ 7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the
employee in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal
employment. Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll
documents/records, etc. Also, include record of any unemployment earning
statements, workers’ compensation, CSRS/FERS retirement annuity payments,
refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums, or severance pay received by the
employee upon separation.

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment
they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The
annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave
ceiling will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES

Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by
the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information
describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
a. Employee name and social security number.
b. Detailed explanation of request.
c. Valid agency accounting.
d. Authorized signature (Table 63).
e. If interest is to be included.
f. Check mailing address.
g. Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
h. Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be
collected (if applicable).
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable).
2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to
return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave
to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and
required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum
Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.
If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10589397. Public record. Not legal advice.