Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 27
Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3
« Previous | Next »
Claim for Overtime and Mileage Leads to Removal--Court Overturns MSPB
Total Comments: 27
Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7470 | +0.0007 | +0.05% |
| F | $12.6172 | +0.0216 | +0.29% |
| C | $10.5209 | +0.0356 | +0.83% |
| S | $12.5059 | +0.1427 | +2.45% |
| I | $14.5176 | +0.1584 | +1.84% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $12.6448 | +0.0773 | +1.24% |
| L 2030 | $12.7606 | +0.0676 | +1.09% |
| L 2020 | $12.9752 | +0.0566 | +0.91% |
| L 2010 | $13.8966 | +0.0292 | +0.46% |
| L Income | $12.8270 | +0.0186 | +0.33% |
January 9, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Burden of Proof
DA
Thu May 1, 2008 10:53 AM
Post Reply
Why does both this case and the postal drug case include an analysis of the proof of the charges based on "substantial evidence"? These are both adverse actions which must be proven by a "preponderance of the evidence". I know that hasn't changed because I started to doubt myself so I checked. My next question is what does an agency have to do to lose before the board? These cases are both just plain crazy. There must be a subtext for at least the travel case that's not showing up in the record. Who knows the rest of the story?
Re: Burden of Proof
US Army
Mon May 5, 2008 2:37 PM
Missing Info
DoD
Thu May 1, 2008 2:46 PM
Post Reply
There's a lot of missing information here, and a lot of jumping to conclusions by the commentors. Based on what I read in the Court's decision, I doubt he was entitled to overtime as claimed, but that's not the crux of the situation. I think the proposing and deciding officials went overboard on the penalty. Granted, he should have known what the JTR authorized, but wouldn't the denial of the claim been sufficient to resolve the issue? I also seriously doubt he was entitled to overtime as well, but a removal? Too harsh. One item I noted as interesting, but not relevant to the appellant, was the fact the union complained about the mail delivery, and when the duties were then obviously performed by a bargaining unit employee, claimed overtime. The appellant was most likely an exempt employee and if OT was not previously requested and approved, he was not entitled to it. The bottom line of this case was not the OT or mileage claim, it was the harshness of the penalty.
Richard A. Leatherbury
US Army
Fri May 2, 2008 6:08 PM
Post Reply
I worked directly with this man, Leatherbury, for 10 years, and my recollections are that he was the most honest man I had ever personally had the privilege working with.
Five Lawyers ?
Department of the Navy
Sat May 3, 2008 7:30 AM
Post Reply
Why in the world did the Army need to pay five lawyers to fight this case ?
Leatherbury
DOD
Fri May 16, 2008 10:39 AM
Post Reply
Now even the MSPB is stacked . . .