WebDepartment of the Army Washington, DC *Army Regulation 690–752 10 February 2024 Effective 10 March 2024 Civilian Personnel Disciplinary and Adverse Actions History. … WebNov 21, 2012 · Compare McCrary v. Dep’t of the Army, 103 M.S.P.R. 266, 272 (2006) (finding that FCIP intern was subjected to an appealable adverse action where the agency terminated her prior to the expiration of her internship), with Scull, 113 M.S.P.R. at 292 (finding that FCIP intern’s termination upon expiration of appointment is generally not an ...
Mattos v. Department of Army Federal Circuit 10-08-1993
Webv . DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MSPB DOCKET NUMBER NY07528210056 OPINION AND ORDER Appellant filed an appeal with the Board's New YorK Regional Office challenging a 40 -day suspension for excessive absenteeism, imposed by the Depaxcment of the Army (agency), effective November 2, 1981. Appellant was charged with … WebIn Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 566 F.2d 242 (1977), this court considered in some detail Exemption Five as it encompasses what has been referred to as the deliberative process privilege. As we there stated ( 184 U.S.App.D.C. at 364, 566 F.2d at 256 ): charlotte aquatics charlotte nc
Donald Kenneth Goodin v. Department of the Army, 2016 …
WebOct 31, 1990 · v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, Respondent. No. 90-3234. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Oct. 31, 1990. Milo D. Burroughs, Roy, Washington, … WebDepartment of Justice, 32 M.S.P.R. 54 (1982), and Ferguson v. Department of Army, 8 M.S.P.R. 615 (1981), are inapplicable. Finally, petitioner argues that the 30-day suspension is excessively harsh, and therefore it is an abuse of discretion by the agency. We note that a 30-day suspension is the minimum penalty under section 1349 for misuse of ... WebApr 9, 2024 · Montgomery v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 382 F. App’x 942, 947 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, even if Ms. Demery did not Case: 19-2282 DEMERY v. ARMY Document: 35 Page: 9 Filed: 04/09/2024 9 actually engage in a protected activity, she could still have a claim if the agency officials nevertheless perceived her as having engaged in protected activity. charlotte area country club initiation fees