Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

There’s about 1,292 employees that are not VLJs (I.e. are attorneys, personnel staff, assistants, etc.). So 15% of that is 192.

There are about 1061 attorneys currently under OAO, 5 under OCOB that aren’t on detail there, 9 under OCC that aren’t on detail. The detailed people are included in the count under OAO. So total is 1075 attorneys and 15% is about 161 attorneys.

I don’t see how we could cut attorneys down to 750 if that was the 2019 number and still hit the total decisions needed by end of FY.

[Anonymous]

They will raise the quota after a drop to 750. They may decide to raise it immediately and without bargaining in light of the executive order on unions.

[Anonymous]

I'm pulling all of these numbers from the Annual Report Fiscal Year. They're publicly available.

Per the FY 2016 fiscal report, the Board had 78 VLJs, and approximately 450 attorneys.

Per the FY 2017 fiscal report, the Board had 84 VLJs, and 671 attorneys.

Per the FY 2018 report, the Board had 92 VLJs, 806 attorneys and 43 law clerks.

Per the FY 2019 report, the Board had 96 VLJs, and "nearly 800 attorneys."

Per the FY 2020 report, the Board had 100 VLJs, and "nearly 850 attorneys."

Per the FY 2021 report, the Board had 108 VLJs, and "over 770 attorneys."

Per the FY 2022 report, the Board had 125 VLJs, and 873 attorneys.

Per the FY 2023 report, the Board had 134 VLJs, and 963 attorneys.

Gauging from the above, the 2018-19 FY numbers had the Board hovering around 800.

The FY 2021 numbers seem off to me.

[Anonymous]

The probationary numbers are changing month to month as newer hires are being retained. We had March 2024-Jan. 2025 new hires from most recent round of hiring, so some are being retained during this RIF calculation process. I wonder if they will be lumped into the correct tenure group for RIF or what that cut-off date will be to consider whether someone is “conditional” or “permanent.” COB Friday when these HR emails are due? Or June, when notices are estimated to roll out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody hearing when the RIF notices will start going out, and when they take effect (when you're out of a job)?

No clue, but they’ll probably put you on admin leave first for 30-60 days. Then you’re officially out of a job. They’ll owe you severance too.

They won’t owe probationary employees severance. They will be easiest (and first) to let go.

[Anonymous]

They aren’t letting us apply for DRP in a serious way so we have to keep drafting decisions until we are axed. Can’t have us languishing on admin leave for 30-60 days when there is real work to do. After that, production goes up to 5 cases/week for those who remain because eff the CBA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t letting us apply for DRP in a serious way so we have to keep drafting decisions until we are axed. Can’t have us languishing on admin leave for 30-60 days when there is real work to do. After that, production goes up to 5 cases/week for those who remain because eff the CBA.

They might be able to get it back to 3.5 which is where it was when I started at the Board but they won’t get to 5 short of attorneys granting or remanding everything. If each attorney is hastily drafting 3-4 denials a week, CAVC is going to toss them right back to us and the backlog continues.

[Anonymous]

If Doug is dead set on RIFing Board attorneys to get back to 2019 numbers then we’re probably talking about 250-300 attorneys.

My general thoughts are that if you’re a GS-14 with 5+ years and FS or better reviews, then you’re probably safe. If they start axing mid career 14s then we’re talking about cutting the attorney workforce to the 500s or 600s which were pre-AMA numbers.

If you’re probationary/bad reviews, you’re at the most risk. If you’re not a probie but under 5 years, you’re the second most at risk.

[Anonymous]

We none of us know for sure what’s going to happen, but I’d be surprised if they cut more than 15% of Board attorneys. Our probationary employees weren’t fired in that first wave, and we are essential so we work through shutdowns. I think they are more likely to do deeper cuts in areas they deem less essential or that they believe can be easily automated (call centers and HR are areas I’ve seen talked about in articles), and less deep cuts in areas that are deemed essential (us and VBA claims processing, direct patient care at VHA). I’m still worried for my job, but I really don’t think they will go down to 2019 levels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Doug is dead set on RIFing Board attorneys to get back to 2019 numbers then we’re probably talking about 250-300 attorneys.

My general thoughts are that if you’re a GS-14 with 5+ years and FS or better reviews, then you’re probably safe. If they start axing mid career 14s then we’re talking about cutting the attorney workforce to the 500s or 600s which were pre-AMA numbers.

If you’re probationary/bad reviews, you’re at the most risk. If you’re not a probie but under 5 years, you’re the second most at risk.

Realistically, how many attorneys get bad reviews and are still there? I thought that attorneys who received less that fully successful at the end of a fiscal year received an automatic PIP.

An attorney who cannot make their quota during a regular fiscal year is not going to be able to keep up with a PIP.

Because of this there are not many current Board attorneys with a history of unsuccessful ratings.If anyone knows someone who got an unsuccessful rating for a whole year and is still there I would like to hear about that.

[Anonymous]

They put a ton of people on PIPs a couple years ago and did not fire most of them after a union fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They put a ton of people on PIPs a couple years ago and did not fire most of them after a union fight.

Going forward, PIPs at VA a thing of the past per Trump’s EO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They put a ton of people on PIPs a couple years ago and did not fire most of them after a union fight.

Did these people finish the PIPs? Do you know if any received unsatisfactory ratings for the whole fiscal year?

[Anonymous]

I don’t work in this area but I worry folks here are expecting what happens to make sense in terms of the mission of the department. Things these people do often don’t really make sense and often cut things past the point of the department really functioning anymore or as intended to function, with the expectation that things will go off the rails and that’s kind of a feature and not a bug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My general thoughts are that if you’re a GS-14 with 5+ years and FS or better reviews, then you’re probably safe. If they start axing mid career 14s then we’re talking about cutting the attorney workforce to the 500s or 600s which were pre-AMA numbers.

At this point it's hard to assume anyone is safe. 14s cost the most, so it seems like firing some of them would save more $$ (not that it's about $$ anyway). This administration has been clear it's not following any of the 'old' rules or protections.