Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That survey is from FY 2018, is there a more current one?

No. AFGE 17, which represents VA Central Office employees (including BVA attorneys), was essentially inoperative during the Trump Administration, as Trump heavily restricted union representation time. The union is becoming more active now that Biden has restored full union rights. Hopefully, the union can do something about management's plan to significantly increase the quota in FY2022.

has this plan been expressed publicly by management?

Yes. The Chairman has notified the union that she wants the Board to render 111,500 decisions in the upcoming fiscal year. That's a year over year increase of approximately 20,000 decisions. As the Board has approximately 850 attorneys on staff, attorneys will each be expected to draft an additional 24 decisions in FY2022. The quota for for FY2022 will be even higher than the quota in FY2018.

3.5 a week rather than 3

How does one measure one-half of a decision?

It’s not measured that way. The current quota of 3 signed decisions a week means that the quota is 156 signed decisions a year (3*52=156). Next fiscal year, the quota will increase to 182 signed decisions a year (3.5*52=182). “Signed decisions” means decisions that are approved by your judge. Decisions that you submit, but are not approved, do not count towards your quota. In order to attain 3.5 signed decisions a week, you will need to submit four or five decisions a week.

The quota isn't measure by week, it's measured by pay period. So even if it did go up to 3.5 week on average, it's 7 per pay period. You could do four one week and three the next and be okay.

[Anonymous]

You’re assuming that if you submit seven decisions a week, your judge will approve all of them. That’s highly unlikely, particularly for the picky judges. Only decisions that are signed are counted towards the quota. That’s the point I was making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re assuming that if you submit seven decisions a **payperiod**, your judge will approve all of them. That’s highly unlikely, particularly for the picky judges. Only decisions that are signed are counted towards the quota. That’s the point I was making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That survey is from FY 2018, is there a more current one?

No. AFGE 17, which represents VA Central Office employees (including BVA attorneys), was essentially inoperative during the Trump Administration, as Trump heavily restricted union representation time. The union is becoming more active now that Biden has restored full union rights. Hopefully, the union can do something about management's plan to significantly increase the quota in FY2022.

has this plan been expressed publicly by management?

Yes. The Chairman has notified the union that she wants the Board to render 111,500 decisions in the upcoming fiscal year. That's a year over year increase of approximately 20,000 decisions. As the Board has approximately 850 attorneys on staff, attorneys will each be expected to draft an additional 24 decisions in FY2022. The quota for for FY2022 will be even higher than the quota in FY2018.

3.5 a week rather than 3

How does one measure one-half of a decision?

Regarding decimal points, the Board rounds up if it’s .5 or higher…so if you need 3.7 decisions, that’s rounded up to 4 decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are attorneys still promoted to GS-14 at the Board automatically? How do step increases work once you hit GS-14?

not automatic. Even if you meet quota they could deny/delay your promotion. I do not know anyone who has had this happen, but they stress you out reminding you that promotion to 14 requires approval of a number of people, and your "application" sits for months.

[Anonymous]

If they keep firing people and raising the quota how do they expect to get and keep people who make quota ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they keep firing people and raising the quota how do they expect to get and keep people who make quota ?

This is the stupidity of how the Board has functioned for years. Churn and burn. An incredible waste of resources that would only be tolerated by the Federal government

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they keep firing people and raising the quota how do they expect to get and keep people who make quota ?

The burnout rate at the Board is high. But, management has no incentive to change working conditions because Congress gives VA and the Board huge amounts of money to constantly hire new attorneys. Because of the huge turnover and burnout rate at the Board, management recently allowed new attorneys to join the Board remotely. This way, the Board has a nationwide applicant pool to churn and burn through. With the quota increasing to 3.5 decisions a week this upcoming fiscal year, I expect the turnover rate to increase dramatically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they keep firing people and raising the quota how do they expect to get and keep people who make quota ?

The burnout rate at the Board is high. But, management has no incentive to change working conditions because Congress gives VA and the Board huge amounts of money to constantly hire new attorneys. Because of the huge turnover and burnout rate at the Board, management recently allowed new attorneys to join the Board remotely. This way, the Board has a nationwide applicant pool to churn and burn through. With the quota increasing to 3.5 decisions a week this upcoming fiscal year, I expect the turnover rate to increase dramatically.

Well, they started on-boarding remotely because of the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they keep firing people and raising the quota how do they expect to get and keep people who make quota ?

The burnout rate at the Board is high. But, management has no incentive to change working conditions because Congress gives VA and the Board huge amounts of money to constantly hire new attorneys. Because of the huge turnover and burnout rate at the Board, management recently allowed new attorneys to join the Board remotely. This way, the Board has a nationwide applicant pool to churn and burn through. With the quota increasing to 3.5 decisions a week this upcoming fiscal year, I expect the turnover rate to increase dramatically.

Well, they started on-boarding remotely because of the pandemic.

Yes, the pandemic was the reason why the Board started onboarding new attorneys remotely. But, the changes are more fundamental - the Board is reducing its overall footprint by giving up office space. In fact, the Board has returned at least one floor to the landlord. These changes are driven in large part by the need to widen the applicant pool.

[Anonymous]

What are reasons judges give for not signing off ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are reasons judges give for not signing off ?

Most of the time, it's because they disagree with your disposition. It's a close judgment call. Let's say you want to grant (and you submit your case as a grant) and your judge thinks we need more info (new medical opinion etc) to decide the case, your judge will send the case back to you for a rewrite. So, it's important to learn the way how your judge thinks/what his or her preferences are. Some are more grant friendly, some tend to remand a lot, and some just want denials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are reasons judges give for not signing off ?

Most of the time, it's because they disagree with your disposition. It's a close judgment call. Let's say you want to grant (and you submit your case as a grant) and your judge thinks we need more info (new medical opinion etc) to decide the case, your judge will send the case back to you for a rewrite. So, it's important to learn the way how your judge thinks/what his or her preferences are. Some are more grant friendly, some tend to remand a lot, and some just want denials.

The worst part about working at the Board is not the onerous quota, but the fact that there is no recourse if you don’t get along with your judge. There is also no recourse if your judge doesn’t like your work. Your judge has near absolute power to end your career if you displease him or her in any way, as upper management will almost never reassign an attorney to another judge. If you complain about discrimination or harassment, management will nitpick your work harshly until you resign.

[Anonymous]

Since this is a VA related thread, I might as well ask here: What's going on with the VA mass hiring Vet service reps? I was thinking about applying for that position.

[Anonymous]

Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited