MSPB and Federal Employee Attorney Blog » Catch 62 Appeals (Military Service Credit Deposit)

Attorney Chris Attig named as 2011 Texas Rising Star.

Chris Attig — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:24:53 +0000

Attorney Chris Attig, with the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, has been recognized by Texas Super Lawyers® 2011 as a 2011 Texas Rising Star. Super Lawyers comprise the top five percent of lawyers in each state and are selected each year through a rigorous nomination process that includes peer review by practice area and independent research on candidates. Rising Stars are age 40 or younger who have been practicing for 10 years or less. No more than 2.5% of lawyers in the state are selected to the annual Rising Stars list.

Attorney Chris Attig is accredited to represent U.S. Veterans before the VA Regional Offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as the Board of Veterans Appeals. He is admitted to the bar of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Attig has been nominated to serve as the co-chair of the Dallas Bar Association’s Veterans Assistance Sub-committtee, a group which works to coordinate pro-bono legal services for U.S. Veterans that live below the poverty line in the DFW Metroplex.

Mr. Attig is a military veteran himself, having served as a Captain in the United States Army (Active and Reserves) from 1993 – 2004. He served at Ft. Bragg (NC), Ft. Sill (OK), Republic of S.Korea, Ft. Benning (GA), and Ft. Hood (TX).

He received his J.D. from South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas in 2003, and is licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland (2003) and Texas (2006). Mr. Attig attended the University of Scranton, where he received a B.A. in History in 1993, and was a Distinguished Military Graduate.

The Attig Law Firm represents U.S. Veterans in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, but in their VA Disability Claims all around the United States, Puerto Rico, and even overseas Veterans in their claims for disability compensation and pensions from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Attig Law Firm also represent Veterans’ survivors in their Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and Accrued Benefits (AB) claims.

If you would like to discuss your VA claim with a lawyer who handles VA Benefits and Disability Appeals, contact the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, for a free consultation with a VA Disability attorney.

MSPB News: Senate panel vets MSPB Nominees

Chris Attig — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:09:34 +0000

In October, a Senate Panel vetted two of President Obama’s nominees for the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nominees are Susan Tsui Grundmann (nominated as chair of the MSPB) and Anne Marie Wagner (nominated to be her vice chairman). The panel was chaired by Senatory Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), who has in the past introduced legislation for reform of the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act.

In his opening statement, chairman Akaka focused on what he hopes becomes one of the top priorities for the MSPB.

“One of the most important responsibilities of the [Merit Systems Protection Board] is to adjudicate claims brought by Federal employee whistleblowers. For almost a decade, I have worked to reform the process for protecting Federal whistleblowers. As the sponsor of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009 (S.372), I believe that one of the key tenets of the Federal merit systems is the ability of Federal employees to report waste, fraud, and abuse without fear of retaliation. For too long, Federal whistleblowers have not received the protection they need. Since the year 2000, the [Merit Systems Protection Board] has repeatedly misapplied Congressional intent with respect to whistleblower protection. I am hopeful that with new statutory protections – and additional [Merit Systems Protection Board] members who understand the important role of whistleblower protections – Federal employees will feel confident again that they can report waste, fraud, abuse, or illegal activity, without risking their professional and financial futures.”

Since 2002, Ms. Grundmann has served as General Counsel to the National Federation of Federal Employees, a union which represents approximately 100,000 Federal employees throughout the U.S. Prior to that, she served as General Counsel to the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers.

Ms. Wagner currently serves as the General Counsel to the Personnel Appeals Board, which decides personnel disputes within the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Before joining GAO, Ms. Wagner worked for 20 years as Assistant General Counsel to the American Federation of Government Employee.

No post on this website is legal advice, is meant to be legal advice, and certainly does not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Information is power, and we are providing this information to give you, the federal employee, with some power. This information is not widely or easily accessible to Federal Employees.

If you are a Federal Employee with questions for a lawyer about your appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and would like to discuss legal representation with an attorney before the MSPB or EEOC, contact the Attig Law Firm, PLLC.

MSPB: Enforcement of Settlement Agreements made during an MSPB Appeal

Chris Attig — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:50:45 +0000

When a Federal Employee negotiates a settlement of an MSPB appeal, he or she is entitled to the benefit bargained for in the agreement. A recent MSPB case illustrates how the MSPB Administrative Judge and the MSPB Full Board review settlement agreements entered into by Parties. Felch v. Navy, 2009 MSPB 160 (August 24, 2009).

First, the MSPB should look to the law of contracts in interpreting settlement agreements. (N.B. – Contract law interprets contracts by first looking to the contract itself. If the words are clear, then interpretation is rather straightforward. If there is ambiguous language, then the law of contracts provides a litany of interpretative tools, which are too detailed to go into here).

For the MSPB, the words of a settlement agreement are of paramount importance. The MSPB will look to the four corners of the document to determine the Parties’ intent. What does all that mean in reality? Here are a couple examples:

1) When a Settlement Agreement in an MSPB appeal provides for only the expungement of adverse action-related documents from an Appellant’s OPF, the Federal Circuit has construed that provision to provide for expungement of those documents from “all personnel records that are officially kept.” King v. Dept. of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

2) When an Agency settled an MSPB appeal by promising to rescind the federal employee’s removal and issue a PS-50 indicating that she had resigned. The MSPB found that this provision is actually a promise by the agency to destroy all removal-related documents, erase “removal” and all reasons for such removal from the Appellant’s record with the Agency, and leave the PS-50 as the only document recording the end of her employment with the Agency. Principe v. USPS, 100 MSPR 66 (2005); Conant v. OPM, 255 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

3) When an Agency agreed, in an MSPB settlement agreement to use its “best efforts” to “effectuate” the federal employee’s disability retirement, the MSPB found that the Agency was precluded from disclosing any removal-related information to the OPM. Conant v. OPM, 255 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

4) Though an agreement did not specifically address the Agency’s obligations about communicating with third-parties (i.e., State unemployment board) , the MSPB found that the Agency must eliminated all references to the suspension and notice of proposed removal from the Appellant’s professional record with the Agency. The Agency could not disclose information about these matters to any third party, including a State Unemployment Insurance Board. Felch v. Dept. of the Navy, 2009 MSPB 160 (August 24, 2009).

If you believe that your Agency has breached a settlement agreement before the MSPB, or if you need help drafting language for an MSPB settlement agreement, or if you are a Federal employee with an MSPB matter, please contact the MSPB lawyers at the Attig Law Firm, PLLC. Lawyers at the Attig Law Firm represent Federal Employees before the MSPB, the EEOC, OPM and OWCP in all fifty (50) states in the country.

MSPB & EEOC: What are Requests for Production and how can the Federal Employee use them in MSPB or EEOC discovery?

Chris Attig — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:39:41 +0000

Both the MSPB and the EEOC afford Appellants (or Complainants) the opportunity to pursue discovery. While the timelines and the amounts of discovery allowed are quite different, the basic ideas of what discovery is and how it should be used are very similar.

There are six (6) primary types of discovery in litigation in the United States (click on the links for the particular type of discovery you want to read about:
Requests for Admission (Click on link to read more about Requests for Admission in MSPB and/or EEO Complaints)

Requests for Interrogatories (Click on link to read more about Requests for Interrogatories in MSPB and/or EEO Complaints)

Requests for Production (Topic of this Blog Entry)

Motion for Entry

Depositions

Depositions on Written Question.

Today’s topic is the Requests for Production. This is the Discovery tool by which one Party asks another Party to produce its tangible evidence. What is tangible evidence:

a) Documents

b) Electronic files

c) Rules/regulations/procedures

d) Notes and files

e) Reports and communications

f) Video and audio recordings

g) Much more

If you can touch it, you can request in a Request for Production. The Requests for Production are one of three (3) types of discovery tools in MSPB and EEOC litigation that can be quite helpful. (The other two are Requests for Admission and Depositions)

When deciding what to request, you should start with what you need to prove (or disprove). Make a chart that lists the legal elements of your claim in the first column. In the second column, list the facts that you think prove the element in your favor. In the third column, list what physical, tangible things you might need to prove that element in your favor (or disprove the element if the Agency has the burden of proof).

The more specific your request, the less likely it is to draw an objection. However, if you make it too specific, the request may be denied (particularly if you are so specific that you have asked for something that doesn’t exist).

I recommend waiting to take your depositions until after you’ve gotten your requests for production and have filed a motion to compel, if necessary. Most times, you want to ask key witnesses about certain documents in a deposition.

Requests for Production will draw objections, but not as many as Requests for Interrogatories. I have seen three different approaches by Agency attorneys in EEOC and MSPB litigation:

Approach Number 1: Give the other side what they need to prove their claim, on the theory that they will get it anyway and the Agency looks bad withholding it.

Approach Number 2: Give the Appellant or Complainant nothing at all, and force them to file a Motion to Compel. Maybe they’ll miss their timeline for the Motion, or maybe the Judge won’t order you to produce the really damaging information. This approach is, unfortunately increasingly common, particularly as government in-house counsel get younger, more aggressive, and less-supervision.

Approach Number 3: Give the Appellant or Complainant only a little bit that they might otherwise get, but make it look like a lot. For example, I know one attorney that photocopied the same email no less than 40 times, and provided it in response to several Requests for Production.

Approach Number 4:Don’t file any responses, wait for the Motion to Compel and then provide responses. The gamble here is that the Agency doesn’t have to respond to discovery if you don’t move to compel their failure to answer in a certain timeframe. Their is a risk to this approach for the Agency – and for you. Be mindful of your timeframes and file any motion to compel within the proper time.

If you are a Federal Employee with questions about discovery before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and would like to speak with a lawyer about discovery at the MSPB or at the EEOC, or if you would like to discuss legal representation with an attorney before the MSPB or EEOC, contact the Attig Law Firm, PLLC.

MSPB: How the credibility of witnesses can affect your MSPB appeal.

Chris Attig — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:50:35 +0000

In any Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hearing, there is invariably testimony from the Agency’s and the Appellant’s witnesses that is not entirely consistent. Though sometimes this may be the result of a witness being untruthful, most times this a purely natural phenomena. Reasonable people can observe the same occurrences from different perspectives, memories affect recollection of incidents, and sometimes a witness’s bias may affect how they perceive an incident.

How, then, does the MSPB Administrative Judge decide which version is more credible? In 1987, the Board issued its decision in Hillen which lays out the factors that the MSPB Administrative Judge must weigh in considering different testimony from different witnesses. Hillen v. Dept. of the Army, 35 MSPR 453 (1987).

Hillen tells us that to resolve credibility issues, an Administrative Judge must:

1) Identify the factual question in dispute

2) Summarize all of the evidence on each disputed question of fact

3) State which version the Administrative Judge believes, and

4) Explain in detail why the chosen version was more credible than the other version(s).

To effectively achieve the fourth step, explaining in detail why the version chosen was more credible than other versions, the Administrative Judge will consider numerous factors, such as:

1) the witnesses opportunity and capacity to observe the event or act in question;

2) the witnesses character

3) any prior inconsistent statement by the witness

4) the witness’s bias or lack of bias

5) the consistency of the witness’s version with other evidence (or whether the witness’s version is contradicted by other evidence)

6) the inherent improbability of the witness’s version of the events, and

7) the witness’s demeanor while testifying.

Hillen is one of the handful of “must-read” decisions for any attorney, pro-se Appellant, or non-attorney representative representing an Appellant before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). A link to the article on the MSPB website is provided by clicking here.

If you are a Federal Employee, and would like to speak with a lawyer about your appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or if you would like to discuss legal representation with an attorney experienced practicing before the MSPB), contact the Attig Law Firm, PLLC.

MSPB & EEOC: What are Requests for Interrogatory and how does the Federal Employee use them in discovery?

Chris Attig — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:23:49 +0000

There are six (6) primary types of discovery in litigation in the U.S (click on the links below for the particular type of discovery you want to read about:

1) Requests for Admission.

2) Requests for Interrogatories (Topic of this Blog Entry)

3) Requests for Production

4) Motion for Entry

5) Depositions

6) Depositions on Written Question.

Today’s topic are Requests for Interrogatory. These are, in my opinion, the most complex discovery device available to you. What they are, what they are used for, how to properly phrase them, how to ensure you get helpful answers, and how to understand the answers are techniques that require experience in the discovery process.

In general, an Interrogatory is a question posed by one party to another party to help understand the other party’s case. Most commonly, the first interrogatories are questions meant to understand the other party’s pleadings; in EEOC and MSPB litigation, there are no initial pleadings to speak of. Generally, Interrogatories can be best used for the following types of questions:

1) Who (did something, had something, knows something, etc)

2) Where (is something, is someone)

3) When (did something happen, did someone know about something,

4) What (does a term mean, are the rules for certain situations, etc)

The “how” and “why” questions that you would ask of another party or witness are best handled through depositions.

Interrogatories must be answered and sworn under oath. Don’t let the opposing counsel get away with letting you go to hearing without a verification page for the interrogatories. You have the right to know who answered the questions, and the verification page tells you this.

Interrogatories generate objections – it’s a fact of life. An experienced trial attorney, in discovery, can see exactly what the opposing party is scared of in their case by their objections to discovery requests. This is more difficult to do in MSPB or EEOC litigation, because most attorneys just throw boiler-plate objections into discovery without thinking about their answers.

Your opposing party’s attorney may be scared that his client will be limited by their answers, and doesn’t know how to cure or prevent that limitation. Your opposing party or their attorney may not want to be candid or direct as a candid or direct answer could be evidence of their liability. Your questions may be very poorly phrased so that your opponent doesn’t know what your asking.

An objection to an interrogatory may not necessarily be something you need to worry about – it is the answer you want, and if the answer isn’t affected by the objection, there is no need to fight about the objection. You can spend a lot of time moving to compel interrogatory answers, so here is the best guidance anyone can give you on Interrogatories:

a) Know exactly what you want to ask for

b) Phrase your questions carefully

** TIP – Have someone else proofread the request, and ask what they would respond with if they knew nothing about the case**

c) Read the objections very carefully, and read the answers very carefully

d) Decide whether the objection limits an answer that is helpful to you or not

e) Be selective in compelling objection-less answers to Interrogatories.

MSPB & EEOC: What are Requests for Admission and how does the Federal Employee use them in discovery?

Chris Attig — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:53:47 +0000

This post is part of a continuing series describing the general discovery tools available to Federal Employees who are Appellants before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and/or Complainants before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Both the MSPB and the EEOC afford Appellants (or Complainants) the opportunity to pursue discovery. While the timelines and the amounts of discovery allowed are quite different, the basic ideas of what discovery is and how it should be used are very similar.

There are six (6) primary types of discovery in litigation in the United States (click on the links for the particular type of discovery you want to read about:

1) Requests for Admission (topic of this post)

2) Requests for Interrogatories

3) Requests for Production

4) Motion for Entry

5) Depositions

6) Depositions on Written Question.

Today’s topic is the “Request for Admissions”. What is a Request for Admission? It is a request that your opponent admit or deny the truth of any matter relevant to your claim.

Neither the MSPB nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit Requests for Admission. The EEOC does put a limit on the numbers of Requests for Admission. Why they do this, I am not sure – Requests for Admission can help to limit the number of truly disputed matters before the EEOC AJ. Nevertheless, you can always ask the Administrative Judge for leave to serve more Requests for Admission.

Requests for Admission are most commonly used to obtain from the other side an understanding of what is or what is not truly disputed (in terms of the facts) in your case. Knowing what is really disputed in your case makes it a lot easier for you to focus on what you have to prove in your case. It also helps the Judge write a more clear decision, as the Parties are not asking him or her to decide facts that they don’t dispute.

Unfortunately, all too many Agency attorneys routinely deny any request for admission, or don’t put the effort into working with the other side to refine Requests for Admission into clear requests that could be admitted or denied. Why? Mostly because they don’t know the case and are scared to have their client admit/deny anything.

The best use for Requests for Admission is to make a list of all facts that would prove or disprove your case, and decide which you think are truly not disputed or are truly disputed. Then, use the Requests for Admission to find out for sure.

For example, in an EEO case, if the Agency admits that you are over 40, then you don’t have to prove it up. But that’s an easy example – it’s not that hard to prove up. Let’s take a more complicated example.

In a reprisal case, you often need to prove that the individual taking the action against you (also known as the Alleged Discriminating Official) knew of your prior protected EEO activity before taking the action against you. This can be hard to prove, unless there is clear evidence already proving it. So, you would typically use 2-3 Requests for Admission to see if the Agency intends to dispute, and will force you to prove, the alleged discriminating official’s prior knowledge of your protected EEO activity.

Requests for Admission are one of three discovery tools (along with requests for production and depositions) that can help you to more efficiently prosecute your EEO Complaint or MSPB Appeal. Spend some time on them, learn about them, and you will reap a benefit at hearing.

MSPB & EEOC: What is Discovery and How can the Federal Employee use it?

Chris Attig — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:54:42 +0000

Discovery is a very important part of your case. In an EEO case, you have the burden of proof, but the Agency has all the information you need to prove your case (documents, witnesses, etc). In an MSPB case, you don’t have the burden of proof (in Chapter 43 or Chapter 75 cases, at least), but the Agency has all the information that might well disprove their own case. In any event, discovery is a very important part of the EEOC or MSPB process.

Most pro-se Appellants at the MSPB and most pro-se Complainants at the EEOC do not take advantage of discovery in either forum. Good discovery can do a couple things for you. First, it can help you investigate whether or not discrimination actually occurred. Second, it can bolster your settlement offers if you have the evidence to back up your claims and can connect the evidentiary dots for the mediator and Agency counsel (assuming you have an Agency Counsel that is not just a bureaucrat). Third, it can increase the damages that are available to you. Fourth, it can help you control a runaway or lying government witness at hearing. There are more reasons to engage in discovery, but those are just a few.

Discovery, in my opinion, is an art and not a science. It is not something you will learn how to do by reading this Blog. Trial attorneys spend a lifetime or a career learning to use discovery, learning how to request discovery, learning how to get the right information in discovery, and learning how to use discovery to educate opposing counsel on the weakness of their client’s case, etc. You can read about it in books, you can download forms and templates, but nothing – in my opinion – is a substitute for experience in discovery (especially when engaged in discovery against the U.S. Government).

Over the next few days, I will discuss the different discovery “tools” that exist, and give the Federal Employee some ideas how to use them in your MSPB appeal or EEOC complaint. The purpose of this Blog Entry is to give you a basic familiarity with the discovery devices available to you

There are six (6) primary types of discovery in litigation in the United States. They are all available to you in your MSPB appeal or EEO Complaint, as both the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (loosely) follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

We will post more information about these different discovery devices over the coming days, so if you don’t see a link, come back and visit us in a couple days, or bookmark this blog entry.

1) Admissions. (Click on the underlined text to read more). Requests for Admission are simple statements of fact that you are asking the other party to admit or deny.

2) Interrogatories (Click on the underlined text to read more). Requests for Interrogatories, or “Rogs” are questions that you ask your opponent, and that they have to answer.

3) Production (Click on the underlined text to read more). Requests for Production are requests for documents and tangible evidence that your opponent has that you would like to discover.

4) Motion for Entry (Click on the underlined text to read more). Requests for Entry onto land or property are not common before the MSPB or the EEOC, but they are viable tools nonetheless. They can be used to enter, sample, test, inspect, and otherwise measure certain physical environments.

5) Depositions (Click on the underlined text to read more). Depositions are an opportunity for you to speak directly with a witness for your opponent and discuss his or her knowledge. They are taken under oath, and are different from Interrogatories in that you get to have a “dialogue” with the individual and are not necessarily “stuck” with their short or self-serving answers.

6) Depositions on Written Question. (Click on the underlined text to read more). Requests for Depos on Written Question are a blend of interrogatories and depositions, and are typically used for a very specific purpose.

MSPB & EEOC: Speaking Opportunities and Presentations on Federal Employment Legal Matters

Chris Attig — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:21:06 +0000

Your managers have training on Employment Law, why don’t the workers?

Mr. Attig is founder of the Attig Law Firm, a Firm that regularly represents Federal Employees before the EEOC, MSPB, OWCP, OPM and OWCP. Clients, potential clients, and various employee organizations have commented on how helpful Mr. Attig’s straightforward and candid explanations of Federal Employment laws, processes, and forums have been to them.

Mr. Attig is available to come to your organization, union, workplace, or association to speak and/or train your members on topics affecting Federal Employees and their Rights in the Workplace. For many Federal Employee unions, councils, locals and chapters that want to offer this training to their stewards, representatives, attorneys or officers, we can often provide these seminars at no cost to the union.

Mr. Attig’s presentations and training can help your Union Stewards better represent their membership. The presentations and training can help your organization promote better awareness of the rights of protected groups in the Workplace. It is a tenet of the Attig Law Firm that “Information is Power”, and Mr. Attig’s presentations and seminars can help your group become more powerful with better training and information.

Common topics that Mr. Attig can discuss are:

1) “The New and Improved Americans With Disabilities Act: Requesting Reasonable Accommodation in the Federal Workplace.”

2) “The Federal Employee Whistleblower: How to Blow the Whistle for Maximum Impact.”

3) “Surviving the PIP: Practical Tips for Federal Employees who have been placed on a Performance Improvement Period”

4) “EEO Complaints for Federal Employees: Understanding and navigating the administrative EEO Complaint Process for Federal Employees.”

5) “How Family Medical Leave Act in the Federal Workforce”

6) “Introduction to the Merit Systems Protection Board: What is it and when do you use it?”

7) “The Puzzle of Laws: How the ADA, OWCP, FMLA, Disability Retirement and other laws and regulations fit together to help Disabled Federal Employees.”

Most presentations last between 1 and 3 hours, but can be specifically suited for your organizations’ purposes and needs.

If your Union (local or national), workers’ association, employee group, or just a collection of similarly situated Federal Employees would like to invite Mr. Attig to present a topic on Federal Employment Law to that group, please Email the Attig Law Firm to discuss dates, topics and costs. For many Federal Employee unions, councils, locals and chapters that want to offer this training to their stewards, representatives, attorneys or officers, we can often provide these seminars at no cost to the union.

Welcome to the Attig Law Firm’s New MSPB, EEOC, and OWCP Website

Chris Attig — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:20:39 +0000

If you visit this site frequently, you will notice the Attig Law Firm’s new website design. Thanks to the team at The Modern Firm for this great new design.

The purpose of the redesign was to make information about our MSPB attorney and Federal Employee EEO lawyer representation services more easily accessible. You’ll notice that there is a new header: “Information is Power”. Here, you can view our MSPB and EEOC Blog.

In the coming weeks and months, we will offer free podcasts to Federal employees on various issues pertaining to MSPB appeal and EEO Complaint rights, MSPB and EEO appeal and hearing procedures, and EEO and MSPB attorney and lawyer representation matters.

We also plan to offer webinars – web based video and training seminars. Some of these webinars will be free and some will be fee-based video presentations and training for Federal Employees. Throughout the past few years, it has become clear to me that there are several issues where Federal Employees do not receive adequate training or information or guidance. These issues include: Surviving a Performance Improvement Period, How to Request Reasonable Accommodations, How to Be an Effective Whistleblower, etc. Keep coming back as we refine and update our MSPB and EEOC Webinar Schedule and Offerings.

It is best to consult with a lawyer familiar with Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeals to discuss the facts and law of your particular case. If you have questions about the MSPB, unscheduled or approved leave, removals for excessive use of leave, or any other question about disciplinary action by your Agency, pleasecontact an MSPB attorney at the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, to schedule a telephone consultation.