±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to reject it. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff...