Yesterday I published an article on an OSC poll. About a third of you guessed that OSC was the “Office of Special Counsel”. You were correct, but what has that got to do with anything?
A few weeks ago, I read of a Veteran who sent his “Writ of Mandamus” to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Big mistake. Its either follow VA procedures to the letter or expect a denial.
Please be patient, I am getting to the “why OSC”.
If you send a complaint to the wrong department, the VA could deny or ignore you. That’s why you need to know about the OSC! You see, if your SSN ends in an odd number, you would submit you claim of retaliation to the OSC, not somewhere else, according to this article.
If you do think you have been retaliated on by the VA at the very least you should submit your complaint to the right agency, and dont forget to read this, before you do!
While this is an 1999 article, it would appear little has changed at the VA.
As Chairman Everett of the House of Representatives, subcommitte on oversight and investigations said:
” My concerns about the VA culture of tolerating favoritism, cronyism, harassment, and retaliation are a matter of record. The VA has a history of turning a blind eye towards mismanagement and misconduct by senior officials while punishing anyone who dares to speak up. ” end of Everett quote
I find it interesting that few Veterans even know what agency to complain to if they have been a victim of retaliation by the VA. Now, Ask Nod readers know better. It makes me wonder if VSO’s know about the OSC and if they would tell us if they did know.
asknod
Bethanie Spangenberg
kcraveiro
robinhoodesqvetsatty
Wesley McCauley
Veterans Claims Help 
Member Bob sez: “According to the DoJ legal eagle assigned to beat Keith Roberts in to the cracks in the sidewalks at the Federal Circuit, he was a protected person as the original Shredder gate whistle blower.
This guy says. . . not so fast. That buried in Title 5 (the Administrative Procedures Act that the VA tries to ignore and forget) but not obvious to the casual observer is protection for claimants.
Roberts did not know this, nor do any other vets I am sure.
Since 99 % of the APA protections and obligations are ignored by the VA making use of this would certainly ruin someone’s day.”
Hopefully you don’t mind if I clarify a few things Joe. Now if HR4072 passes (more likely to pass the Senate than the House) and is signed into law by the President, then we will be having this discussion about the VA. And it will probably be within the context that you have provided here.
The OSC handles USERRA appeals and the Hatch Act (whistleblower) for FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. The Hatch Act doesn’t really have anything to do with Veterans at all, but encompasses all Federal Employees.With Veteran employees that work for publicly owned businesses and corporations, the Dept of Justice handles USERRA appeals from the DOL-VETS. Where the odd SSN comes into play is that POTUS came up with the brilliant idea to have OSC handle all USERRA complaints directly from federal (Veteran) employees without them first going through DOL – VETS if they have an odd SSN.
What it amounts to is that now the OSC can spit out a denial in about 6 weeks instead of waiting 3 months for an appeal from a DOL – VETS denial. Filing a USERRA complaint is a road to nowhere. Only 2-4% ever prevail. I’ve seen 2 maybe three Veterans get their jobs back in the last 5 years. Forget about getting an attorney for a USERRA complaint. They won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole unless the Veteran is close to retirement and they plop down 40k. That’s why so few attorneys know anything at all about USERRA. Oh, and by the way, a WRIT OF MANDAMUS is a remedy available in a Federal Court and is only allowed by certain statutes that allow such remedy.
——————————————-
38§4311. Discrimination against persons who serve in the uniformed services and acts of reprisal prohibited
(a) A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation.
(b) An employer may not discriminate in employment against or take any adverse employment action against any person because such person (1) has taken an action to enforce a protection afforded any person under this chapter, (2) has testified or otherwise made a statement in or in connection with any proceeding under this chapter, (3) has assisted or otherwise participated in an investigation under this chapter, or (4) has exercised a right provided for in this chapter. The prohibition in this subsection shall apply with respect to a person regardless of whether that person has performed service in the uniformed services.
(c) An employer shall be considered to have engaged in actions prohibited-
(1) under subsection (a), if the person’s membership, application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership, application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for service; or
(2) under subsection (b), if the person’s (A) action to enforce a protection afforded any person under this chapter, (B) testimony or making of a statement in or in connection with any proceeding under this chapter, (C) assistance or other participation in an investigation under this chapter, or (D) exercise of a right provided for in this chapter, is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such person’s enforcement action, testimony, statement, assistance, participation, or exercise of a right.
(d) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to any position of employment, including a position that is described in section 4312(d)(1)(C) of this title.
Definately a keeper.
Showing my ignorance here but mine ends in 0.
So does mine…The OSC’s approach to a “de novo” review of a USERRA appeal is a trip to the shredder! 🙂