爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. 爆料网AT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that 爆料网RWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in 爆料网RWA DT’s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency’s decision was arbitrary or prejudiced. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the DUO/J’s decision to terminate his services. 爆料网RWA DT found that, in making this decision, the Agency acted in compliance with 爆料网RWA Area Staff Regulation 9.1 and with the informal and formal OTI process and the deadlines and extensions outlined in 爆料网RWA Area Personnel Directive PD/A/23. 爆料网RWA DT held that the Applicant’s underperformance and lack of improvement justified the decision to terminate his appointment. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application in its entirety.
Legal Principle(s)
An appellant has the burden of establishing that a first instance judgment is defective within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the 爆料网AT Statute.