Last Updated on March 6, 2012
It is exasperating to observe how unilateral and “unfair” deadlines are treated for Federal Disability Retirement applications, whether under FERS or CSRS, for Federal and Postal employees.
There are, of course, the “hard” deadlines — of filing for a Request for Reconsideration (30 days — to be on the “safe” side, from the date of the letter of denial from the Office of Personnel Management); for filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (1 year from the date of separation from Federal Service); of filing an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (again, to be on the “safe” side, within 30 days from the date of the denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management); and similar hard deadlines.
Then, of course, there are the “softer” deadlines, of responding to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in substantive form — of submitting additional medical documentation within 30 days, and similar such “softer” deadlines. They are “soft” deadlines only because the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will not get to one’s file and begin the process of review, evaluation and analysis until well beyond the passing of the so-called deadline.
The frustrating part of it all, of course, is that while the Federal or Postal applicant is restricted by both hard and soft deadlines, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is oblivious and unaffected by any deadlines whatsoever. However, the optimistic viewpoint is to see the “soft” deadlines as opportunities to submit additional medical documentation, arguments, and relevant evidence, any time during the process — before, or even after, either a “soft” or a “hard” deadline comes about.
There is one exception, however: the Statute of Limitations. In that event, as the undersigned has repetitively stated, unless one meets that one particular deadline in form, there is no basis to make any substantive arguments, because the Statute of Limitations is the point of essence where form and substance coincide.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire