Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With this new wave of hiring at the BVA, what is the general consensus amongst current employees? Are work conditions getting better, worse, or staying the same?

My feeling is that has always been a hostile work environment perpetuated by management. Individual judges may vary.

I agree. Believe it or not, the quota is not the worst part about working at BVA. Experiences at BVA vary greatly depending on the judge you are assigned to. If you get assigned to a nice judge who prefers decisions that are two to three pages long, you will have no problem meeting the quota. You’ll likely exceed the quota, and management will love you.

However, if you get assigned to a mean/rude judge and/or a judge who wants thorough 10-20 page decisions, your experience at the Board will be vastly different. Attorneys who are assigned to these judges generally work far in excess of 40 hours a week. While most judges at the Board are decent people who just want to get the job done, about 20 or so judges at the Board have reputations for being toxic. The chance that you’ll get assigned to a toxic judge is relatively high.

The worst part about working at the Board is that upper management routinely denies request to transfer away from the toxic judges - management denies transfer requests because they know that if they grant the requests, no one would want to work for the bully judges. If you complain about bullying and/or harassment, management set you up to fail and treat you so badly that you’ll resign.

This is true. This problem has existed for 20+ years and will likely exist for 20+ more. Management just does not care. Their response is just to tell you to quit, and you'll be replaced with another brand-new law school graduate. Can't wait to see all those new judges come onboard with absolutely no experience in veterans law. That's going to be fun.

How long ago did you leave? It isn’t like that anymore. Every work environment has some toxic bosses. It’s a good job for some people (even that years old survey had less than half even responding) - those who can work independently, like the benefits of telework and remote work options. If the job is a bad fit, move on (and read the room, get out if you aren’t going to be able to make production; hint if you’re on a good team and are a good worker, they will help you make production. If they don’t like you, they won’t help you. Definitely have to watch your reputation).

NP here. Nearly 400 Board attorneys responded to the FY2018 union survey. While I agree that less than half of the Board's attorney staff responded to that survey, 400 is still a large number. When nearly 400 Board attorneys complain about the work environment, perhaps that's indicative of something more than just "some toxic bosses"? I also agree that some Board attorneys like working at the Board because of benefits such as telework and remote options; however, I'm pretty sure that those attorneys are assigned to judges who are supportive and protective of their attorneys. A large percentage of Board judges are not like that. Hence the reason for the high attrition rates at the Board. Even if you like your judge, there's no guarantee that you'll stay with that judge, as management changes team assignments from time to time.

FY2018 union survey: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4dc55b1b-80ed-4b2c-9e0a-155be961d998#pageNum=111

I looked at the survey. I find it surprising that 70 percent of the 395 attorneys who responded to the survey had less than five years of experience. Strange. I wonder why people aren't staying at the Board long term.

not very strange at all. that should speak for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Even if you get lucky and are assigned to a kind hearted judge, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stay with that judge forever. Management moves attorneys around from time to time. Like the poster above, I too have seen several career GS-14 attorneys with decades of outstanding evaluations get their careers destroyed after they were reassigned to one of the really, really terrible judges - the ones you are referring to. One's success or failure shouldn't be wholly dependent on the luck of the draw or the graces of a judge.

Additionally, one's experience at the Board is also highly dependent on whether one is assigned to a judge with high denial rate or high grant rate. Attorneys who are assigned to judges with high denial rates regularly have to draft decisions that are long, detailed, and well-reasoned, to ensure that the denials are defensible in federal court. Many of these attorneys have to work in excess of 40 hours a week to meet the quota. In contrast, attorneys who are assigned to judges with high grant rates, generally have no problem meeting or even exceeding the quota, as they can write conclusory decisions that are typically no longer than three pages (as VA disability claims are non-adversarial, the government cannot appeal decisions granting benefits). I don't think that kind of disparity is fair.

Very true. Even some of the judges who are decent people can still be difficult bosses, because they demand nearly law-review levels decisions anytime you're denying anything. The Board's own data from a few years back confirmed two important facts that are obvious to anyone who's worked there 15+ years - the number of issues per case, and the number of documents per case have both risen dramatically. This means writing decisions has gotten harder, because there's a bigger file to review and more issues to address. So what has been management's response? Increase the quota (or attempt to increase it)! Heck, it took management 10+ years to even start factoring in issue count when considering whether you've met quota. Management talks all the time about "employee engagement" and all the usual buzzwords, but it's just talk. They really don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Even if you get lucky and are assigned to a kind hearted judge, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stay with that judge forever. Management moves attorneys around from time to time. Like the poster above, I too have seen several career GS-14 attorneys with decades of outstanding evaluations get their careers destroyed after they were reassigned to one of the really, really terrible judges - the ones you are referring to. One's success or failure shouldn't be wholly dependent on the luck of the draw or the graces of a judge.

Additionally, one's experience at the Board is also highly dependent on whether one is assigned to a judge with high denial rate or high grant rate. Attorneys who are assigned to judges with high denial rates regularly have to draft decisions that are long, detailed, and well-reasoned, to ensure that the denials are defensible in federal court. Many of these attorneys have to work in excess of 40 hours a week to meet the quota. In contrast, attorneys who are assigned to judges with high grant rates, generally have no problem meeting or even exceeding the quota, as they can write conclusory decisions that are typically no longer than three pages (as VA disability claims are non-adversarial, the government cannot appeal decisions granting benefits). I don't think that kind of disparity is fair.

Very true. Even some of the judges who are decent people can still be difficult bosses, because they demand nearly law-review levels decisions anytime you're denying anything. The Board's own data from a few years back confirmed two important facts that are obvious to anyone who's worked there 15+ years - the number of issues per case, and the number of documents per case have both risen dramatically. This means writing decisions has gotten harder, because there's a bigger file to review and more issues to address. So what has been management's response? Increase the quota (or attempt to increase it)! Heck, it took management 10+ years to even start factoring in issue count when considering whether you've met quota. Management talks all the time about "employee engagement" and all the usual buzzwords, but it's just talk. They really don't care.

How does your judge have time to review all these law review level decisions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Even if you get lucky and are assigned to a kind hearted judge, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stay with that judge forever. Management moves attorneys around from time to time. Like the poster above, I too have seen several career GS-14 attorneys with decades of outstanding evaluations get their careers destroyed after they were reassigned to one of the really, really terrible judges - the ones you are referring to. One's success or failure shouldn't be wholly dependent on the luck of the draw or the graces of a judge.

Additionally, one's experience at the Board is also highly dependent on whether one is assigned to a judge with high denial rate or high grant rate. Attorneys who are assigned to judges with high denial rates regularly have to draft decisions that are long, detailed, and well-reasoned, to ensure that the denials are defensible in federal court. Many of these attorneys have to work in excess of 40 hours a week to meet the quota. In contrast, attorneys who are assigned to judges with high grant rates, generally have no problem meeting or even exceeding the quota, as they can write conclusory decisions that are typically no longer than three pages (as VA disability claims are non-adversarial, the government cannot appeal decisions granting benefits). I don't think that kind of disparity is fair.

Very true. Even some of the judges who are decent people can still be difficult bosses, because they demand nearly law-review levels decisions anytime you're denying anything. The Board's own data from a few years back confirmed two important facts that are obvious to anyone who's worked there 15+ years - the number of issues per case, and the number of documents per case have both risen dramatically. This means writing decisions has gotten harder, because there's a bigger file to review and more issues to address. So what has been management's response? Increase the quota (or attempt to increase it)! Heck, it took management 10+ years to even start factoring in issue count when considering whether you've met quota. Management talks all the time about "employee engagement" and all the usual buzzwords, but it's just talk. They really don't care.

While I agree that some BVA judges expect their attorneys to write high quality decisions, most BVA judges do not prioritize quality. According to Stanford University, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remands approximately 77.5 percent of BVA decisions due to serious errors of law or fact - the Court of Appeals reviews approximately 4,000 BVA decisions each year and remands approximately 3,100 of them. See Stanford Study at 245. Most Board attorneys know the reason for the high remand rate - management prioritizes quantity over quality to such an extent that Board attorneys have to take extreme shortcuts to meet the quota. That, in turn, causes problems at the Court of Appeals, as that court is focused on quality and not quantity.

Stanford University study on BVA: https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ho_HandanNader_Ames_Marcus.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Even if you get lucky and are assigned to a kind hearted judge, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stay with that judge forever. Management moves attorneys around from time to time. Like the poster above, I too have seen several career GS-14 attorneys with decades of outstanding evaluations get their careers destroyed after they were reassigned to one of the really, really terrible judges - the ones you are referring to. One's success or failure shouldn't be wholly dependent on the luck of the draw or the graces of a judge.

Additionally, one's experience at the Board is also highly dependent on whether one is assigned to a judge with high denial rate or high grant rate. Attorneys who are assigned to judges with high denial rates regularly have to draft decisions that are long, detailed, and well-reasoned, to ensure that the denials are defensible in federal court. Many of these attorneys have to work in excess of 40 hours a week to meet the quota. In contrast, attorneys who are assigned to judges with high grant rates, generally have no problem meeting or even exceeding the quota, as they can write conclusory decisions that are typically no longer than three pages (as VA disability claims are non-adversarial, the government cannot appeal decisions granting benefits). I don't think that kind of disparity is fair.

Very true. Even some of the judges who are decent people can still be difficult bosses, because they demand nearly law-review levels decisions anytime you're denying anything. The Board's own data from a few years back confirmed two important facts that are obvious to anyone who's worked there 15+ years - the number of issues per case, and the number of documents per case have both risen dramatically. This means writing decisions has gotten harder, because there's a bigger file to review and more issues to address. So what has been management's response? Increase the quota (or attempt to increase it)! Heck, it took management 10+ years to even start factoring in issue count when considering whether you've met quota. Management talks all the time about "employee engagement" and all the usual buzzwords, but it's just talk. They really don't care.

How does your judge have time to review all these law review level decisions?

Here's a typical BVA decision. How long would it take you to review it?

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files9/A21016123.txt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Even if you get lucky and are assigned to a kind hearted judge, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to stay with that judge forever. Management moves attorneys around from time to time. Like the poster above, I too have seen several career GS-14 attorneys with decades of outstanding evaluations get their careers destroyed after they were reassigned to one of the really, really terrible judges - the ones you are referring to. One's success or failure shouldn't be wholly dependent on the luck of the draw or the graces of a judge.

Additionally, one's experience at the Board is also highly dependent on whether one is assigned to a judge with high denial rate or high grant rate. Attorneys who are assigned to judges with high denial rates regularly have to draft decisions that are long, detailed, and well-reasoned, to ensure that the denials are defensible in federal court. Many of these attorneys have to work in excess of 40 hours a week to meet the quota. In contrast, attorneys who are assigned to judges with high grant rates, generally have no problem meeting or even exceeding the quota, as they can write conclusory decisions that are typically no longer than three pages (as VA disability claims are non-adversarial, the government cannot appeal decisions granting benefits). I don't think that kind of disparity is fair.

Very true. Even some of the judges who are decent people can still be difficult bosses, because they demand nearly law-review levels decisions anytime you're denying anything. The Board's own data from a few years back confirmed two important facts that are obvious to anyone who's worked there 15+ years - the number of issues per case, and the number of documents per case have both risen dramatically. This means writing decisions has gotten harder, because there's a bigger file to review and more issues to address. So what has been management's response? Increase the quota (or attempt to increase it)! Heck, it took management 10+ years to even start factoring in issue count when considering whether you've met quota. Management talks all the time about "employee engagement" and all the usual buzzwords, but it's just talk. They really don't care.

How does your judge have time to review all these law review level decisions?

Here's a typical BVA decision. How long would it take you to review it?

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files9/A21016123.txt

This is a sample of grants, so typically grants are shorter. Denials, on the other hand, are much longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With this new wave of hiring at the BVA, what is the general consensus amongst current employees? Are work conditions getting better, worse, or staying the same?

My feeling is that has always been a hostile work environment perpetuated by management. Individual judges may vary.

I agree. Believe it or not, the quota is not the worst part about working at BVA. Experiences at BVA vary greatly depending on the judge you are assigned to. If you get assigned to a nice judge who prefers decisions that are two to three pages long, you will have no problem meeting the quota. You’ll likely exceed the quota, and management will love you.

However, if you get assigned to a mean/rude judge and/or a judge who wants thorough 10-20 page decisions, your experience at the Board will be vastly different. Attorneys who are assigned to these judges generally work far in excess of 40 hours a week. While most judges at the Board are decent people who just want to get the job done, about 20 or so judges at the Board have reputations for being toxic. The chance that you’ll get assigned to a toxic judge is relatively high.

The worst part about working at the Board is that upper management routinely denies request to transfer away from the toxic judges - management denies transfer requests because they know that if they grant the requests, no one would want to work for the bully judges. If you complain about bullying and/or harassment, management set you up to fail and treat you so badly that you’ll resign.

This is true. This problem has existed for 20+ years and will likely exist for 20+ more. Management just does not care. Their response is just to tell you to quit, and you'll be replaced with another brand-new law school graduate. Can't wait to see all those new judges come onboard with absolutely no experience in veterans law. That's going to be fun.

How long ago did you leave? It isn’t like that anymore. Every work environment has some toxic bosses. It’s a good job for some people (even that years old survey had less than half even responding) - those who can work independently, like the benefits of telework and remote work options. If the job is a bad fit, move on (and read the room, get out if you aren’t going to be able to make production; hint if you’re on a good team and are a good worker, they will help you make production. If they don’t like you, they won’t help you. Definitely have to watch your reputation).

NP here. Nearly 400 Board attorneys responded to the FY2018 union survey. While I agree that less than half of the Board's attorney staff responded to that survey, 400 is still a large number. When nearly 400 Board attorneys complain about the work environment, perhaps that's indicative of something more than just "some toxic bosses"? I also agree that some Board attorneys like working at the Board because of benefits such as telework and remote options; however, I'm pretty sure that those attorneys are assigned to judges who are supportive and protective of their attorneys. A large percentage of Board judges are not like that. Hence the reason for the high attrition rates at the Board. Even if you like your judge, there's no guarantee that you'll stay with that judge, as management changes team assignments from time to time.

FY2018 union survey: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4dc55b1b-80ed-4b2c-9e0a-155be961d998#pageNum=111

If you’re a bad enough attorney to get fired from the board, being an attorney is probably not the job for you. It’s not that hard to avoid getting fired.

Management rarely fires attorneys through the formal adverse action process. Normally, when management doesn't like an attorney, management will nitpick that individual's work so intensely that the attorney will lose confidence, breakdown, and resign. Management will only formally fire an attorney if the attorney doesn't "voluntarily" resign and/or fights back. Attorneys assigned to the nice judges don't understand what it is like to work for the toxic judges. These attorneys tend to think everything is great at the Board... that is, until they get reassigned to a toxic judge. The extremely high attrition rate at the Board suggests that the work environment is not as rosy as you say it is.

If anyone is interested in seeing what a typical Board decision looks like, click on the link below.

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files9/A21016123.txt

Ohhhh…. Cool inside information. Or they could just search on their own as the decisions are all public - https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions

[Anonymous]

Why isn’t there anything more recent than 2018? Is it because the response rate was pretty low and the report is so poorly written that its an embarrassment to the union?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t there anything more recent than 2018? Is it because the response rate was pretty low and the report is so poorly written that its an embarrassment to the union?

I'm disagree that the response rate to the survey was low. Approximately 395 out of 800 Board attorneys responded to that survey. While I admit that less than 50 percent of Board attorneys responded to the survey, that's still nearly 50 percent of the Board's attorney staff.

There isn't anything more recent than 2018 because the union was essentially disbanded during the Trump Administration. Trump issued a series of executive orders in 2018 that drastically reduced the amount of time that union officials could spend on union activities. While these cuts did not officially disband unions at federal agencies, the cuts were so drastic that most unions, including the one at the Board, were forced to cease representational activities. Under the Biden administration, the union at VA is becoming more active, but right now, the focus is on negotiating return to work policies and other Covid related issues.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/05/25/restricting-federal-unions-firing-poor-performers/
https://www.fedsmith.com/2020/05/29/dramatic-decrease-official-time-va/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With this new wave of hiring at the BVA, what is the general consensus amongst current employees? Are work conditions getting better, worse, or staying the same?

My feeling is that has always been a hostile work environment perpetuated by management. Individual judges may vary.

I agree. Believe it or not, the quota is not the worst part about working at BVA. Experiences at BVA vary greatly depending on the judge you are assigned to. If you get assigned to a nice judge who prefers decisions that are two to three pages long, you will have no problem meeting the quota. You’ll likely exceed the quota, and management will love you.

However, if you get assigned to a mean/rude judge and/or a judge who wants thorough 10-20 page decisions, your experience at the Board will be vastly different. Attorneys who are assigned to these judges generally work far in excess of 40 hours a week. While most judges at the Board are decent people who just want to get the job done, about 20 or so judges at the Board have reputations for being toxic. The chance that you’ll get assigned to a toxic judge is relatively high.

The worst part about working at the Board is that upper management routinely denies request to transfer away from the toxic judges - management denies transfer requests because they know that if they grant the requests, no one would want to work for the bully judges. If you complain about bullying and/or harassment, management set you up to fail and treat you so badly that you’ll resign.

This is true. This problem has existed for 20+ years and will likely exist for 20+ more. Management just does not care. Their response is just to tell you to quit, and you'll be replaced with another brand-new law school graduate. Can't wait to see all those new judges come onboard with absolutely no experience in veterans law. That's going to be fun.

How long ago did you leave? It isn’t like that anymore. Every work environment has some toxic bosses. It’s a good job for some people (even that years old survey had less than half even responding) - those who can work independently, like the benefits of telework and remote work options. If the job is a bad fit, move on (and read the room, get out if you aren’t going to be able to make production; hint if you’re on a good team and are a good worker, they will help you make production. If they don’t like you, they won’t help you. Definitely have to watch your reputation).

NP here. Nearly 400 Board attorneys responded to the FY2018 union survey. While I agree that less than half of the Board's attorney staff responded to that survey, 400 is still a large number. When nearly 400 Board attorneys complain about the work environment, perhaps that's indicative of something more than just "some toxic bosses"? I also agree that some Board attorneys like working at the Board because of benefits such as telework and remote options; however, I'm pretty sure that those attorneys are assigned to judges who are supportive and protective of their attorneys. A large percentage of Board judges are not like that. Hence the reason for the high attrition rates at the Board. Even if you like your judge, there's no guarantee that you'll stay with that judge, as management changes team assignments from time to time.

FY2018 union survey: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4dc55b1b-80ed-4b2c-9e0a-155be961d998#pageNum=111

If you’re a bad enough attorney to get fired from the board, being an attorney is probably not the job for you. It’s not that hard to avoid getting fired.

Management rarely fires attorneys through the formal adverse action process. Normally, when management doesn't like an attorney, management will nitpick that individual's work so intensely that the attorney will lose confidence, breakdown, and resign. Management will only formally fire an attorney if the attorney doesn't "voluntarily" resign and/or fights back. Attorneys assigned to the nice judges don't understand what it is like to work for the toxic judges. These attorneys tend to think everything is great at the Board... that is, until they get reassigned to a toxic judge. The extremely high attrition rate at the Board suggests that the work environment is not as rosy as you say it is.

If anyone is interested in seeing what a typical Board decision looks like, click on the link below.

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files9/A21016123.txt

Ohhhh…. Cool inside information. Or they could just search on their own as the decisions are all public - https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions

The link takes you to a blank search box. It would be very difficult to search BVA decisions without knowing the relevant search terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t there anything more recent than 2018? Is it because the response rate was pretty low and the report is so poorly written that its an embarrassment to the union?

**I** disagree that the response rate to the survey was low. Approximately 395 out of 800 Board attorneys responded to that survey. While I admit that less than 50 percent of Board attorneys responded to the survey, that's still nearly 50 percent of the Board's attorney staff.

There isn't anything more recent than 2018 because the union was essentially disbanded during the Trump Administration. Trump issued a series of executive orders in 2018 that drastically reduced the amount of time that union officials could spend on union activities. While these cuts did not officially disband unions at federal agencies, the cuts were so drastic that most unions, including the one at the Board, were forced to cease representational activities. Under the Biden administration, the union at VA is becoming more active, but right now, the focus is on negotiating return to work policies and other Covid related issues.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/05/25/restricting-federal-unions-firing-poor-performers/
https://www.fedsmith.com/2020/05/29/dramatic-decrease-official-time-va/

Typo correction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t there anything more recent than 2018? Is it because the response rate was pretty low and the report is so poorly written that its an embarrassment to the union?

I'm disagree that the response rate to the survey was low. Approximately 395 out of 800 Board attorneys responded to that survey. While I admit that less than 50 percent of Board attorneys responded to the survey, that's still nearly 50 percent of the Board's attorney staff.

There isn't anything more recent than 2018 because the union was essentially disbanded during the Trump Administration. Trump issued a series of executive orders in 2018 that drastically reduced the amount of time that union officials could spend on union activities. While these cuts did not officially disband unions at federal agencies, the cuts were so drastic that most unions, including the one at the Board, were forced to cease representational activities. Under the Biden administration, the union at VA is becoming more active, but right now, the focus is on negotiating return to work policies and other Covid related issues.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/05/25/restricting-federal-unions-firing-poor-performers/
https://www.fedsmith.com/2020/05/29/dramatic-decrease-official-time-va/

Correct. The other problem is that by law the agency does not have to bargain with the union directly about quota. They CAN negotiate things like implementation and how credits are applied. So, in addition to the open anti union hostility of the trump administration, the law is on the side of the agency when it comes to setting the quota. As long as we continue to have an appointee of the prior administration running the show, i do not expect anything reasonable to come from management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Correct. The other problem is that by law the agency does not have to bargain with the union directly about quota. They CAN negotiate things like implementation and how credits are applied. So, in addition to the open anti union hostility of the trump administration, the law is on the side of the agency when it comes to setting the quota. As long as we continue to have an appointee of the prior administration running the show, i do not expect anything reasonable to come from management.

Pretty much. BVA management loves that "our union partners" talk, but their actions tell a far different story. Look how long (10+ YEARS!) it took before they'd actually allow proration of the quota for taking annual leave, etc. It's ridiculous it took this long to be able to take leave without having to come in on weekends beforehand to "get ahead" of the quota so you're not being harassed by your supervisor when you get back.

[Anonymous]

Someone earlier, who was thinking of applying to this position, had posted something along the lines of...if they were unable to meet quota, they would just resign. Let's say if that's the case, you are behind on your quota and you VOLUNTARILY quit (so not because you are on PIP etc) , and then later on in your career, you decide you want to come back to BVA, would your previous inability to meet quota negatively affect future hiring opportunities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone earlier, who was thinking of applying to this position, had posted something along the lines of...if they were unable to meet quota, they would just resign. Let's say if that's the case, you are behind on your quota and you VOLUNTARILY quit (so not because you are on PIP etc) , and then later on in your career, you decide you want to come back to BVA, would your previous inability to meet quota negatively affect future hiring opportunities?

If you were unable to meet the quota during your first stint at BVA, it is unlikely that management will want to rehire you. However, even if BVA rehires you, what makes you think that you would be able to meet the quota during your second stint? The bigger question is why would you want to return to a workplace where you were unable to perform?