Update From PostalReporter reader:  MSPB remanded the appeal to the AJ with instructions to see that the agency file a disability retirement for the appellant if the requirements under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8337(a), 8451(a)(1)(A) and 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.1205(a), 844.202(a) were met (see http://www.mspb.gov/decisions/2007/galwey_at060045i1.pdf).  The federal laws and regulations cited by the MSPB are incorporated into our contract in Article 21, Section 3 Retirement.
 
The reality is no one in USPS management files a management-initiated disability retirement, although the procedure exists (ELM 365.342f, ELM 568 and ELM 588).  Mentally-disabled employees, like Anthony Galwey, get a Notice of Removal, but not disability retirement papers or retirement counseling.  There is a one-year time limit to apply for a disability retirement after separation.  Many lose out because they don’t know.
 
Employees under FERS have a more generous disability benefit than many realize (see http://www.opm.gov/asd/hod/pdf/C061.pdf).  Normally they get 60% of their average salary the first year and 40% thereafter with annual COLAs.  It can be more if they also qualify for Social Security disability benefits.  At age 62, their retirement annuity is recalculated as if they had worked until age 62.  They can do other work while on disability retirement.  It isn’t like OWCP.  FERS employees can draw out their Thrift Savings Plan money after retirement if it is needed.
                                      ————

The Postal Service proposed the removal of Anthony Galwey based on charges of failure to be regular in attendance and failure to provide medical documentation or other acceptable evidence. After the Postal Service issued its decision to remove Galwey, he filed a grievance that the parties settled by agreeing, in part, that the he would immediately submit a release of his medical records to the agency.

The Postal Service removed Galwey in September 2005 based on his noncompliance with the settlement agreement. “After conducting the requested hearing, the AJ affirmed the appellant’s removal and denied his affirmative defenses. The appellant filed a timely petition for review, which the agency opposes….we have suspended our consideration of the appellant’s petition for review pending completion of the aforementioned proceedings.”

On review, the MSPB found that “the medical evidence raised questions regarding the appellant’s ability to work, his competence to file a disability retirement application, and the agency’s possible responsibility for filing a disability retirement application on the appellant’s behalf.”

From PostalReporter Reader:

Galwey vs US Postal Service
January 26, 2007
http://www.mspb.gov/decisions/2007/galwey_at060045i1.pdf

“The agency should have concluded that the appellant was incapable of making a decision to file a disability retirement application….[W]e therefore conclude that it is appropriate to remand this appeal to the Atlanta Regional Office for the AJ to determine whether the agency had a duty to file a disability retirement application on the appellant’s behalf.”

Galwey was a Mail Processor.  ELM 365.342f states: “An employee who is eligible for disability retirement is not separated for mental disability. Rather, the appointing official files an application for disability retirement on the employee’s behalf provided the requirements are met (see ELM 568 and ELM 588).”

With the demise of district human resources associates, there is no one left with the expertise or willingness to file a management-initiated disability retirement. Disabled employees are now kicked out the door. Disability retirement counseling should be mandatory for all separations due to illness or injury.  Employees need to know that there is a one-year time limit after separation to apply.

MSPB states :

Both the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees’ Retirement System mandate that an agency file a disability retirement application on an employee’s behalf where the employee meets the service requirements for a disability retirement annuity and where the following circumstances are met: (1) The agency has issued a decision to remove the employee; (2) the agency concludes, after its review of medical documentation, that the cause for the employee’s unacceptable performance, attendance or conduct is disease or injury; (3) the employee is institutionalized, or the agency concludes, based on its review of medical and other information, that the employee is incapable of making a decision to file an application for disability retirement; (4) the employee has no personal representative or guardian; and (5) the employee has no immediate family member who is willing to file an application on his behalf