Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

DOGE promised widespread firings and they need numbers by end of May. Veterans suddenly aren't an untouchable voting bloc so the 20 year old GS 15s feel free to slash the VA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

You could say the same thing about RIFs at other agencies.

No, I think a backlog of disabled veterans compensation cases is different than other agencies.

Yes, every agency has a different mission. I was referring to the “counter of the mission” part.

Or was a major priority. I fear that the veteran-friendly, veteran favored sentiment is being crushed..or in the very least, increasingly ignored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

You could say the same thing about RIFs at other agencies.

No, I think a backlog of disabled veterans compensation cases is different than other agencies.

I agree. One of the reasons many VA jobs are essential is because a lot of the claims are time sensitive due to age or illness. There are also lots of people with mental health claims, and the mental health of vets is a major priority in Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

You could say the same thing about RIFs at other agencies.

No, I think a backlog of disabled veterans compensation cases is different than other agencies.

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

There's always a backlog and will continue to be as long as they keep paying attorneys for every tiny error in their client's file. The backlog would go away if they withheld payment to attorneys until the claim on appeal was completely settled.

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

Because they want to change the mission? They don’t want to give veterans appeal rights?

By firing everyone, no appeals will be done. Then when people complain, they can say the system is broken and a new system needs to be created.

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

You could say the same thing about RIFs at other agencies.

Why would anyone take folks who work through a backlog of veterans appeals away? Then the backlog would increase, seems counter to the mission

Make sure you save copies of your reviews. I practice employment law and have talked to many feds that were RIF'd at other agencies.

I have heard from more than one person whose rating information was inaccurate when applying the RIF criteria. Stating that they received a 3 when it was really a 5, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are also more expensive to RIF with severance pay, etc. Probies and newer attorneys are cheaper to let go. Plus with RTO, the “older” attorneys are more likely to still reside in DMV area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight as to why BVA didn't have us verify SCD-RIF? We had to verify SCD leave and retirement, but not RIF? These dates are often different.

On my file all of the SCD (leave, retire, RIF, TSP) were the same.

They may be different if you have prior federal service or qualifying military service. My leave and retire SCDs are different.

Anonymous wrote:Any insight as to why BVA didn't have us verify SCD-RIF? We had to verify SCD leave and retirement, but not RIF? These dates are often different.

On my file all of the SCD (leave, retire, RIF, TSP) were the same.

Any insight as to why BVA didn't have us verify SCD-RIF? We had to verify SCD leave and retirement, but not RIF? These dates are often different.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The RIF factors are tenure group, veterans preference,, length of service, and performance ratings. Since they asked us to verify information related to these areas, it is reasonable to assume those factors come into play in a RIF.