|
|
Post by acttwo on Jun 15, 2017 17:36:48 GMT -5
I applied in 2013 and was told my WD score did not meet the minimum required to receive an overall score. As they did not give me any other information, my appeal was a single paragraph email stating that I believed this was in error and OPM held all of the information. In July 2015, I was notified they had everything re-graded by different people and I now met the minimum qualifications to receive a score. They did not say how they came to this determination other than everything had been re-graded. I don't know if they simply went with the new scores or averaged them. If you have any information to provide them, do so. But if you appeal by simply saying I think you were wrong, they will still go back through and make sure there were no errors. However, this is not a quick process. My appeal was very brief, because, gee, I don't have the information upon which to create a point by point "here's where you were off" appeal. I was polite, simply stated that I believe my WD did meet minimum requirements, and asked that it be reviewed. I suppose if I do it again, I might try to read some ODAR decisions in advance, but am not sure that is really what is wanted. Not sure we can know what is wanted. [or if anyone of us DOES know, you are sworn to keep it secret]. In my current spot, when I was in an administrative forum, I always told everyone who asked, whether for parking tickets to default judgments in the tens of thousands of dollars, even when I "won" the judgment: Appeal. It's free and if we are honest with ourselves, mistakes are made. Sometimes a new set of eyes or even a different day can make a big difference. And, hey, if my "victory" isn't solid and is overturned, that is GOOD. So, can't talk the talk if I don't walk the walk. May not change anything, but if I put out the cash to go to DC, shoot, I can send an email. All the best to all. To those in my spot, I feel for you and hope that we can find our way to a better spot. Keep the faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 15, 2017 17:49:28 GMT -5
In the past the appeal process was lengthy. I think it will take even longer this time as about 50% of the applicants didn't make it. Probably most were due to failure of the WD. It is going to take a while to regrade all of those tests. I think at least some of you will have it regraded by a different examiner and come out of it with a passing grade. At least I hope so. The SI is a different animal. I think less chance for a favorable result there than with the WD. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 15, 2017 18:12:53 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm 100% sure that I signed a CA that stated that, not only the subject matter of the testing was covered by the CA, but that the actual testing procedures were also. Thus, I would caution those discussing the panel composition and I will avoid it. As gary pointed out in an earlier post, the CA makes it extremely difficult to discuss potential reasons why a person may fail the WD. I can think of 3 very specific reasons why somebody could write a beautiful piece of prose, leave the test feeling good about what they wrote, and yet fail the test. I can't think of any way to discuss them without being too close to the CA line for my comfort. I will say this about the discussion in this thread. It is woefully off base about the WD IMO. The focus on how well you write and whether you use $25 words or one syllable words complete misses the point. If you think this was a test of writing style, grammar, and how "pretty" you write, then that probably explains why you failed the WD. There is a wonderful post about preparing for the testing by a board member ( owl ) that I haven't seen much on the board during my time on the board. That post made me stop and think about this process and framed how I approached each stage. In my mind, Owl is responsible for me making the register and if there is any karma in life, I will have the opportunity, somehow someday, to buy him/her multiple rounds of his/her favorite situational beverage as a thank you. OPM has told you what they are testing for and the WD was NOT entitled a writing test. WD stands for Written Demonstration, not writing test. I think you are misguided by going down the path suggested by statements that an ALJ doesn't write opinions and testing writing ability is meaningless, especially when made by someone who admits they have never seen the WD. Take a moment before writing your appeal, ask yourself what you were being asked to demonstrate and whether you did that. Saying you write well, that people have loved how you write, and that you have written 1000's of decisions misses the point. It is probably too late but figure out for yourself what the intent of the test was, what you were being asked to demonstrate, and how you can tell OPM that you did that. Good luck. Thank you for the kind words! I am quite sure your gratitude is misplaced but as a cash-strapped fed worker bee I would certainly never pass up a free beverage should our paths ever cross. Best of luck to you and to everyone in this process.
If the post to which you refer has been deleted (I haven't checked), it wasn't my doing. IIRC some confidentiality nervous nellies were skittish about it, but everything I wrote was taken from the job announcement. To paraphrase (and greatly shorten) for anyone interested, it was that everything in this process is, by very careful design, a test (which is why they call it the ALJ Examination, not the ALJ Application). A test of 13 defined competencies. And I believe, inferring from that, that it is possible, by OPM's very careful (nefarious?) design, to give wrong or even disqualifying "answers" at many points throughout the test, even points that might not seem intuitive. So my advice, such as it was, was just to buckle down and always be trying to give the right answer (or at least not the wrong answer), first and foremost.
When we have obviously excellent, professional writers reporting in significant numbers that they didn't meet the minimum score on the WD - which has happened each of the four times that there has been mass grading since the 2013 opening - Occam's Razor says that quality of writing could not possibly have been the determinative factor for those folks.
With that said, while I do believe OPM strives for as much objectivity in the process as possible, I also believe that luck/arbitrariness/subjectivity still plays a significant role since it is, after all, a human-run endeavor. The proof of that is that despite having a well-below-average score I did not want any part of reapplying when the reopening occurred. I am quite sure that despite my best efforts to take my own advice I gave many wrong (although obviously not disqualifying) answers (hence the score) and likely just lucked into a fair number of the right ones.
Again, good luck to all, whether waiting for certs, appealing, etc.
It has not been deleted. The first two posts in this link are the ones I was referring to. To everyone else, it appears that my message, my delivery, or both were not well received by some and perceived to be lacking empathy or humility. I apologize for poorly executed good intentions and will exit this thread stage left after this post to avoid further provocation. montyburns, my intent was not to pick on you or say that you shouldn't be talking about anything which is why I avoided calling you out by name. I just thought that much of the thread was focused on writing quality and that your statements that it didn't make sense to test writing quality twice by testing it during the online component and at DC, as well as the statement that ALJs don't even write had the potential to lead people off track on what they should be discussion in their appeal....again, all just my opinion. To use a sports analogy, its like the pitcher who just gave up a dinger to put his team down by a run in the top of the 9th. There will be time enough for bemoaning bad luck and the unfairness of the process later but now is not the time. The focus needs to be on the next pitch because the game is still afoot. The pitcher needs to focus and not just lob any ol' pitch up to the plate but must make a quality pitch to have any chance of staying in the game. Sincerely, good luck to all with their appeals. Be deliberate, focus on what was being sought in the test, and litigate those points. Or, "I"m smarter than that idiot redneck Bayou" may very well be the ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 15, 2017 18:47:13 GMT -5
Thank you for the kind words! I am quite sure your gratitude is misplaced but as a cash-strapped fed worker bee I would certainly never pass up a free beverage should our paths ever cross. Best of luck to you and to everyone in this process.
If the post to which you refer has been deleted (I haven't checked), it wasn't my doing. IIRC some confidentiality nervous nellies were skittish about it, but everything I wrote was taken from the job announcement. To paraphrase (and greatly shorten) for anyone interested, it was that everything in this process is, by very careful design, a test (which is why they call it the ALJ Examination, not the ALJ Application). A test of 13 defined competencies. And I believe, inferring from that, that it is possible, by OPM's very careful (nefarious?) design, to give wrong or even disqualifying "answers" at many points throughout the test, even points that might not seem intuitive. So my advice, such as it was, was just to buckle down and always be trying to give the right answer (or at least not the wrong answer), first and foremost.
When we have obviously excellent, professional writers reporting in significant numbers that they didn't meet the minimum score on the WD - which has happened each of the four times that there has been mass grading since the 2013 opening - Occam's Razor says that quality of writing could not possibly have been the determinative factor for those folks.
With that said, while I do believe OPM strives for as much objectivity in the process as possible, I also believe that luck/arbitrariness/subjectivity still plays a significant role since it is, after all, a human-run endeavor. The proof of that is that despite having a well-below-average score I did not want any part of reapplying when the reopening occurred. I am quite sure that despite my best efforts to take my own advice I gave many wrong (although obviously not disqualifying) answers (hence the score) and likely just lucked into a fair number of the right ones.
Again, good luck to all, whether waiting for certs, appealing, etc.
It has not been deleted. The first two posts in this [a href="http://aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3453/moving-dc-phase-testing-2015?filters[]=post_created_by%3Aeq%3A2934"]link [/a] are the ones I was referring to. To everyone else, it appears that my message, my delivery, or both were not well received by some and perceived to be lacking empathy or humility. I apologize for poorly executed good intentions and will exit this thread stage left after this post to avoid further provocation. montyburns, my intent was not to pick on you or say that you shouldn't be talking about anything which is why I avoided calling you out by name. I just thought that much of the thread was focused on writing quality and that your statements that it didn't make sense to test writing quality twice by testing it during the online component and at DC, as well as the statement that ALJs don't even write had the potential to lead people off track on what they should be discussion in their appeal....again, all just my opinion. To use a sports analogy, its like the pitcher who just gave up a dinger to put his team down by a run in the top of the 9th. There will be time enough for bemoaning bad luck and the unfairness of the process later but now is not the time. The focus needs to be on the next pitch because the game is still afoot. The pitcher needs to focus and not just lob any ol' pitch up to the plate but must make a quality pitch to have any chance of staying in the game. Sincerely, good luck to all with their appeals. Be deliberate, focus on what was being sought in the test, and litigate those points. Or, "I"m smarter than that idiot redneck Bayou" may very well be the ticket.[/quote] Don't leave on my account! Seriously, you got a score so your perspective is clearly worth something, and I pretty much agree with you. Your point about my comments is well taken and I see your point. However -in true OPMian fashion - the comments also lead to the same conclusion that you were making: the writing itself is probably not as significant as remembering what is being ultimately tested. The ability to execute that to OPMs satisfaction, and what precisely that takes, is the uncertain, unknowable, and most frustrating aspect. I certainly agree that prose, style, eloquence, etc. are not the endgame. At the very least, I have never heard the term "$25 word" before this, but I'm definitely appropriating it. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenretrievermom on Jun 15, 2017 22:15:59 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm 100% sure that I signed a CA that stated that, not only the subject matter of the testing was covered by the CA, but that the actual testing procedures were also. Thus, I would caution those discussing the panel composition and I will avoid it. As gary pointed out in an earlier post, the CA makes it extremely difficult to discuss potential reasons why a person may fail the WD. I can think of 3 very specific reasons why somebody could write a beautiful piece of prose, leave the test feeling good about what they wrote, and yet fail the test. I can't think of any way to discuss them without being too close to the CA line for my comfort. I will say this about the discussion in this thread. It is woefully off base about the WD IMO. The focus on how well you write and whether you use $25 words or one syllable words complete misses the point. If you think this was a test of writing style, grammar, and how "pretty" you write, then that probably explains why you failed the WD. There is a wonderful post about preparing for the testing by a board member ( owl ) that I haven't seen much on the board during my time on the board. That post made me stop and think about this process and framed how I approached each stage. In my mind, Owl is responsible for me making the register and if there is any karma in life, I will have the opportunity, somehow someday, to buy him/her multiple rounds of his/her favorite situational beverage as a thank you. OPM has told you what they are testing for and the WD was NOT entitled a writing test. WD stands for Written Demonstration, not writing test. I think you are misguided by going down the path suggested by statements that an ALJ doesn't write opinions and testing writing ability is meaningless, especially when made by someone who admits they have never seen the WD. Take a moment before writing your appeal, ask yourself what you were being asked to demonstrate and whether you did that. Saying you write well, that people have loved how you write, and that you have written 1000's of decisions misses the point. It is probably too late but figure out for yourself what the intent of the test was, what you were being asked to demonstrate, and how you can tell OPM that you did that. Good luck. Good advice here. I would only add that, as one who has said "writing doesn't matter for ALJs," this was meant as a statement of fact, NOT advice on how to approach the WD or appeal failing it. Hopefully, the hive mind was able to discern that "leaving the page blank" was, in fact, a joke. Apparently it was not obvious. Please also reference my disclaimers wherein I specifically state one should not follow my "advice." I'm here to salve egos, not offer legal advice. If someone is reading my pithy commiserations as advice, well, I'm surprised they made it this far in life.
Further, by your own logic, since I did not do the WD/SI and therefore did not sign the CA, shouldn't I be one of the only ones here who is able to discuss the SI/WD freely? As to methodology, what you and Lucy describe is exactly what I did for as far as I made it. I'm fairly certain I know the owl post you describe. I have a few from Gaiden in the same vein. When I tested, I gathered all the posts from here that I found salient, as well as other resources I had gathered (largely found by being referenced on here) and printed them out. I reviewed them the night before the testing/application. Seemed solid to me. I didn't make it, so I hesitate to endorse this methodology to others. But I will certainly use it again if I ever reapply. On the WD, having never taken it, I couldn't say how misguided using $25 words is, but it certainly fits in my analytical framework for the prior parts of the exam. Bayou, if you are as articulate in person as you are on here, I think you are headed to an ALJ job in a cert or so. (It's true I never made a cert so wtf do I know). Reminiscent of Gaiden in some ways. However, you don't have one thing many in here do - the perspective of having failed the test. It may be that you don't have a lot of experience failing period. However, if you are indeed on the ODAR ALJ fast track, you'll be served well by trying to appreciate the failure's perspective and why some people, despite seeming to do all the right things, came out on the wrong end of life. montyburns, nice post and the bolded comment really made me laugh. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jun 16, 2017 7:30:17 GMT -5
To give some perspective on the timing of appeals, I received a NOR on 5/1/13, telling me: "You did not provide sufficient licensure information to pass the preliminary qualification screening at the time of your application submission. Complete licensure information includes listing jurisdictions in which you are currently licensed to practice law, the date(s) of admission to the bar in each jurisdiction, and the bar license number in each jurisdiction (for those jurisdictions that confer such numbers)." When I looked at my application, the only detail I saw that I missed was putting the date of admission. I had given them the month and the year, thinking the date wasn't critical after 20+ years. Anyway, I appealed, not thinking it would matter. I was right - it didn't matter. Important to this thread is that I didn't get an answer to my appeal until 6/9/15. It took more than two years to decide something that simple, and my appeal was denied, even though other applicants made it through by giving just the mm/yyyy. I'm not intending to discourage anyone from appealing, but if you think the process has been slow up to this point, be prepared for a LONG wait. For sure, don't pin your career hopes for on a successful and quick appeal. Good luck nonetheless, and I mean that honestly.
Edit: after I wrote this, I went back to the appeal letter and read, "After all appeals have been adjudicated, applicants will be notified via email of the
Panel’s decision." So, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of your issue on appeal, all appellants will learn at the same time.
|
|
neely
Full Member
Posts: 35 
|
Post by neely on Jun 16, 2017 9:18:10 GMT -5
In the past the appeal process was lengthy. I think it will take even longer this time as about 50% of the applicants didn't make it. Probably most were due to failure of the WD. It is going to take a while to regrade all of those tests. I think at least some of you will have it regraded by a different examiner and come out of it with a passing grade. At least I hope so. The SI is a different animal. I think less chance for a favorable result there than with the WD. Pixie This may be the crazy "never give up" masochist in me, but what do those "in the know" think there is a serious possibility that OPM overcompensated from 2013 (~5 certs?! and I assume a huge registry?), made the minimum scores too high, axed way too many people and but be VERY generous on the appeals/re-evaluations, in an attempt to re-populate a potentially inadequately short registry? I apologize if this has been done before, but 5 months of testing= ~22 weeks (rounding up), 4 "rounds"/week, 30 people a "round", that's 2,640 people who tested in DC. I that cut approximately half, that means the registry has only 1,320 people. If they plan on hiring 250 people/year for the next three years, AND while many, many people applied for all GALs, many applicants can on consider one or two locations. Also I'm someone a relatively rural region, there are a lot of ODARs that people will not want to go, or get stuck with soon, and leave after a year. 1,320 people for 750 spots? Factor in that many applicants have very limited GALs? Will they even cover? I doubt they'll publically come out, admit they made a mistake and lower the minimums (correct me if you think I am wrong, please). However, like I said, in a year or two, is there a possibility that OPM (SSA, whoever?) will be relatively generous in re-evaluating appeals, in an attempt to fill a rapidly depleted registry? I imagine they would do that, instead of going through the process again (but again, I can only speculate)? Thoughts? |
|
neely
Full Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by neely on Jun 16, 2017 9:22:38 GMT -5
Also, an email letting applicants know they can appeal and how within 24 hours of rejection, in a process that is anything but quick seems strange to me.
Maybe I am chasing shadows? What were previous delays on notice of appeal emails?
|
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 16, 2017 9:32:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rp on Jun 16, 2017 9:32:41 GMT -5
Also, an email letting applicants know they can appeal and how within 24 hours of rejection, in a process that is anything but quick seems strange to me. Maybe I am chasing shadows? What were previous delays on notice of appeal emails? In 2013 it was the exact same time frame for me. 24 hours. I don't think there is anything to be read into that aspect. Others may have different opinions. |
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 16, 2017 9:47:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by montyburns on Jun 16, 2017 9:47:02 GMT -5
In the past the appeal process was lengthy. I think it will take even longer this time as about 50% of the applicants didn't make it. Probably most were due to failure of the WD. It is going to take a while to regrade all of those tests. I think at least some of you will have it regraded by a different examiner and come out of it with a passing grade. At least I hope so. The SI is a different animal. I think less chance for a favorable result there than with the WD. Pixie This may be the crazy "never give up" masochist in me, but what do those "in the know" think there is a serious possibility that OPM overcompensated from 2013 (~5 certs?! and I assume a huge registry?), made the minimum scores too high, axed way too many people and but be VERY generous on the appeals/re-evaluations, in an attempt to re-populate a potentially inadequately short registry? I apologize if this has been done before, but 5 months of testing= ~22 weeks (rounding up), 4 "rounds"/week, 30 people a "round", that's 2,640 people who tested in DC. I that cut approximately half, that means the registry has only 1,320 people. If they plan on hiring 250 people/year for the next three years, AND while many, many people applied for all GALs, many applicants can on consider one or two locations. Also I'm someone a relatively rural region, there are a lot of ODARs that people will not want to go, or get stuck with soon, and leave after a year. 1,320 people for 750 spots? Factor in that many applicants have very limited GALs? Will they even cover? I doubt they'll publically come out, admit they made a mistake and lower the minimums (correct me if you think I am wrong, please). However, like I said, in a year or two, is there a possibility that OPM (SSA, whoever?) will be relatively generous in re-evaluating appeals, in an attempt to fill a rapidly depleted registry? I imagine they would do that, instead of going through the process again (but again, I can only speculate)? Thoughts? Your optimism is admirable. I think OPM did the opposite- started with lower criteria (i.e. lowered the passing score for the online component to match what they ended up doing in 2013/15) so they could get as many people on and shut SSA up for a while. In another thread the stat nerds came up with about 1100 on the register, pretty close to your rough calcs. The next 3-4 years will be boom years for hiring, but past performance leads me to believe they will underachieve their goals in at least one of these years (emphasize at least). So I would think 500-600 new ALJs will be hired by say 2020-21. After that it's attrition hiring, probably for the rest of the half century or so. So 100 or so a year after that. The 1100-1300 getting on now will be joining the 300 or so left. So 1400-1600 on the register. This is, by far, the largest amount of people on the register at least since this site came online (and probably ever). So by 2020-21, the 1400-1600 will down to 800-1100 ish. That is still more than they got on the register in 2013/15. That's enough for at least five years of attrition hires. At least. So it's not unreasonable to think 2025-26 is going to be the next shot. |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 16, 2017 10:26:53 GMT -5
To give some perspective on the timing of appeals, I received a NOR on 5/1/13, telling me: "You did not provide sufficient licensure information to pass the preliminary qualification screening at the time of your application submission. Complete licensure information includes listing jurisdictions in which you are currently licensed to practice law, the date(s) of admission to the bar in each jurisdiction, and the bar license number in each jurisdiction (for those jurisdictions that confer such numbers)." When I looked at my application, the only detail I saw that I missed was putting the date of admission. I had given them the month and the year, thinking the date wasn't critical after 20+ years. Anyway, I appealed, not thinking it would matter. I was right - it didn't matter. Important to this thread is that I didn't get an answer to my appeal until 6/9/15. It took more than two years to decide something that simple, and my appeal was denied, even though other applicants made it through by giving just the mm/yyyy. I'm not intending to discourage anyone from appealing, but if you think the process has been slow up to this point, be prepared for a LONG wait. For sure, don't pin your career hopes for on a successful and quick appeal. Good luck nonetheless, and I mean that honestly. Edit: after I wrote this, I went back to the appeal letter and read, "After all appeals have been adjudicated, applicants will be notified via email of the
Panel’s decision." So, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of your issue on appeal, all appellants will learn at the same time. So it's like this last round--we all wait for everyone. Not sure what sense that makes--especially if they grant some you'd think they'd want them out and on the list. I'm sure it's well intended--perhaps a Biblical "the first shall be last and the last shall be first," with all the complexities and multiple interpretations of such statements. However that does explain aljdtj's two year wait.
Worth appealing, nothing to lose, but in the meantime we move on. And like winning a new trial, we are then faced with trying to be "fresh" and "in the moment" when we and the other side have a script we've already run in production.
So appealing means also moving on--but being sure to check your mail periodically. I'll use the same email for other job apps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jun 16, 2017 10:53:47 GMT -5
I'd appeal, and tell them it's enough to allow you to do what you do. I'd also find out how to go back to active status. Decide if it's worth the extra money and any other requirements (e.g. CLE) and go around this bend again It's not that much more money to be active but [my current employer (i.e., State of _____ agency)] might get wind of it, and wonder what is going on--would it affect promotions, raises?? Don't know. And we ARE required to have the same number of continuing ed. as "active" practice attorneys. That's a tough one - If it were me, I'd do a pro/con list, talk to people in my life that I trust to have my best interest at heart and get additional insight from those people (or person, depending on the situation), and then decide. I'd talk to at least one other person with whom I could share the whole thing just to be sure I'm not breathing my own fumes. And I tell the person or people that's what I am looking for. This is my own method for avoiding confirmation bias, the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by southerngal on Jun 16, 2017 13:17:58 GMT -5
That's a tough one - If it were me, I'd do a pro/con list, talk to people in my life that I trust to have my best interest at heart and get additional insight from those people (or person, depending on the situation), and then decide. I'd talk to at least one other person with whom I could share the whole thing just to be sure I'm not breathing my own fumes. And I tell the person or people that's what I am looking for. This is my own method for avoiding confirmation bias, the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. Southerngal: I got my response in the wrong place... trying again:Actually, I think I misspoke earlier: I am Active Status - I can appear as an attorney in any and all trial and appellate courts in STATE of _______. I represent a Department in the State government and am forbidden to take private clients (not much difference from in-house corporate counsel, EXCEPT the law doesn't give THEM the "option" of having a Special License [it's just a little cheaper]). As I understand from others who have gotten the same reason for "ineligibility," it is OPM that has taken the position we don't qualify. They may even be singling out our State--maybe OPM doesn't read much further when our answer says we're SPECIAL membership status. (An attorney friend said today: "That's crazy, you are special, you're a cut above the rank and file!") --Southerngal |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 16, 2017 13:37:33 GMT -5
southerngirl --and others with bar issues that are nonissues--As you are able to do everything that a lawyer in your office may do, then you are able to fully practice law within the confines of your oath of office as are judges who are also bound not to have private practices. This type of appeal would appear to be the easiest. However, because of it's "yes/no" basis, it is also one that may be cured quickly, and anyone facing this may want to have a private attorney who handles OPM issues contact their general counsel to avoid you haveing to file suit and asked to be put on now. Reason is, looking at the above language pointed out by aljtj, you will be totally right, can prove it right now, but may have to wait 'til they get through my and other's SI or WD appeals before they say to you "So sorry-you hadn't made that clear ** you are back on."
**OPM does not err. The applicant does.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 16, 2017 13:40:49 GMT -5
on appeal--or not:note montyburns statement:
"So it's not unreasonable to think 2025-26 is going to be the next shot" That is a long long trail................
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jun 16, 2017 13:52:53 GMT -5
on appeal--or not:note montyburns statement: "So it's not unreasonable to think 2025-26 is going to be the next shot" That is a long long trail................ I was thinking the same thing, foghorn. If you're a FOAD now, you're probably dead for many years unless you are miraculously resurrected by a successful appeal. That time frame for a new application will be too late for me. I could be getting SS retirement by then. Hmm. A check from the SSA for not working, or a check for working? One would be much more than the other, but I don't think I'd be able to convince Granny to let me move her to West Craplandia when we're that long in the tooth.  |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 16, 2017 13:57:44 GMT -5
on appeal--or not:note montyburns statement: "So it's not unreasonable to think 2025-26 is going to be the next shot" That is a long long trail................ Don't make too much of it, but it is in the range of reasonably anticable outcomes. Also possible they will do it all again in 2019-20 or even scrap the current process altogether (please!). Of course much larger issues loom over that time horizon with much larger implications for the ALJ process (Bandamere case), ODAR (Lack of appointed COSS and stated intention to reduce the roles by Mulvaney (though I'm sure there are a million contrary quotes by the boss man)), our government (Not going there), perhaps even Western civilization as we know it (face it, we're screwed). Truly anything is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 16, 2017 14:14:13 GMT -5
on appeal--or not:note montyburns statement: "So it's not unreasonable to think 2025-26 is going to be the next shot" That is a long long trail................ I was thinking the same thing, foghorn. If you're a FOAD now, you're probably dead for many years unless you are miraculously resurrected by a successful appeal. That time frame for a new application will be too late for me. I could be getting SS retirement by then. Hmm. A check from the SSA for not working, or a check for working? One would be much more than the other, but I don't think I'd be able to convince Granny to let me move her to West Craplandia when we're that long in the tooth. I'm sort if at a point where I'd just as soon let another decade go before giving it a serious shot again, but I'm 40. It's exhausting emotionally; gets expensive if you end up flying to D.C. every 3 years; my kids are at an age where dragging them to set up shop in west craplandia for an indeterminate period doesn't sound appealing, nor does spending a bunch of money to live a lonely life apart from them for an indefinite period. |
|
|
|
Post by mango54 on Jun 16, 2017 14:34:00 GMT -5
So....is the general consensus for one who failed the WD to simply email an appeal indicating that you feel the score is in error and that OPM would have the necessary information regarding the errors be sufficient? I do not see any real use in pointing out particulars as I don't know of any....in other words no need to raise arbitrariness or other Hail Mary arguments.....agreed?
|
|
|
|
Post by rhd on Jun 16, 2017 15:11:08 GMT -5
on appeal--or not:note montyburns statement: "So it's not unreasonable to think 2025-26 is going to be the next shot" That is a long long trail................ Don't make too much of it, but it is in the range of reasonably anticable outcomes. Also possible they will do it all again in 2019-20 or even scrap the current process altogether (please!). Of course much larger issues loom over that time horizon with much larger implications for the ALJ process (Bandamere case), ODAR (Lack of appointed COSS and stated intention to reduce the roles by Mulvaney (though I'm sure there are a million contrary quotes by the boss man)), our government (Not going there), perhaps even Western civilization as we know it ( face it, we're screwed). Truly anything is possible. I'll agree with you on the death of Western Civilization part. |
|
