[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-279084-105":53,"doc-detail-279084-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","employee-v-dbh-oea-matter-no-j-0011-22","Employee v DBH OEA Matter No. J-0011-22","","Initial Decision in an Office of Employee Appeals matter concerning whether an appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Employee challenged the end of service at the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health after submitting a resignation effective November 5, 2021, and later requesting rescission. After procedural milestones, including filings and briefing on jurisdiction, the Administrative Judge determined that OEA jurisdiction was not established and an evidentiary hearing was not required; the record was closed.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/employee-v-dbh-oea-matter-no-j-0011-22/279084/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/employee-v-dbh-oea-matter-no-j-0011-22/279084.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Eden","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What event triggered the Employee’s appeal to OEA?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The Employee appealed contesting the end of her service at the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health after the Agency declined her request to rescind her resignation.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"On what basis did the Administrative Judge address jurisdiction?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The decision focuses on whether OEA’s jurisdiction was established, including timeliness of filing and the jurisdictional burdens set by OEA rules.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Was an evidentiary hearing held in this matter?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"No. After considering the parties’ submissions, the Administrative Judge decided that an evidentiary hearing was not required and the record was closed.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},279084,1790063247,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":76},1374391974468,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE  \nTHE OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS  \nIn the Matter of: )  \n)  \nEMPLOYEE, 1 )  \nEmployee ) OEA Matter No. J-0011-22  \n)  \nv. ) Date of Issuance: May 25, 2022)  \nD.C. DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL ) MICHELLE R. HARRIS, ESQ.  \nHEALTH, ) Administrative Judge  \nAgency )  \n)  \n ) David A. Branch, Esq., Employee Representative Jeremy Greenberg, Esq., Agency Representative  \nINITIAL DECISION  \nINTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND  \nOn November 30, 2021, Employee filed a Petition for Appeal with the Office of Employee Appeals (“OEA” or “Office”) contesting the end of her service at the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (“Agency or DBH”) . Employee’s service ended effective November 5, 2021, following Agency’s declination of her request to rescind a resignation that was submitted on October 21, 2021. Following a letter dated November 30, 2021, from OEA requesting an Answer in this matter, Agency filed an Answer and Request for Dismissal on December 21, 2021.  \nI was assigned this matter on January 6, 2022. On January 11, 2022, I issued an Order Convening a Prehearing Conference in this matter for February 8, 2022. Prehearing Statements were due on or before January 25, 2022. Agency filed its Prehearing Statement on January 25, 2022. Employee, by and through counsel, filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Out of Time and subsequently filed a Prehearing Statement on February 1, 2022.2 Both parties appeared for the Prehearing Conference as scheduled. During the conference, the undersigned permitted an extension for discovery and ordered briefs be submitted in this matter. An Order was issued February 8, 2022, requiring discovery be complete by March 14, 2022. Further, this Order noted that there was an outstanding jurisdiction issued raised by Agency in both its Answer and Prehearing Statement. Accordingly, Employee’s brief on jurisdiction was due on or before March 28, 2022, and Agency’s response was due on or before April 18, 2022. Following an Unopposed Motion for a One-Day Extension to File3, Employee’s brief was submitted on March 30, 2022. Agency’s brief was submitted on April 18, 2022. After considering the parties’ arguments as  \n1 Employee’s name was removed from this decision for the purposes of publication on the Office of Employee Appeals’ website.  \n2 Employee’s Motion for Leave to File out of Time is hereby GRANTED.  \n3 Employee’s Motion is hereby GRANTED.  \npresented in their submissions to this Office, I have decided that an Evidentiary Hearing is not required. The record is now closed.  \nISSUE  \nWhether this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  \nBURDEN OF PROOF  \nOEA Rule 628.1, 59 DCR 2129 (March 16, 2012) states:  \nThe burden of proof with regard to material issues offact shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.“Preponderance of the evidence” shall mean:  \nThat degree of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find a contested fact more probably true than untrue.  \nOEA Rule 628.2 id. states:  \nThe employee shall have the burden of proof as to issues of jurisdiction, including timeliness of filing. The agency shall have the burden of proof as to all other  \nissues.  \nJURISDICTION  \nFor the reasons explained below, the jurisdiction of this Office has not been established in this matter.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW  \nEmployee worked for Agency as a Strategic Planning and Policy Engagement Officer since March 2016. On October 21, 2021, Employee submitted a written resignation following the receipt of a job offer. The effective date of the resignation was November 5, 2021. On October 26, 2021, Employee verbally requested to rescind her resignation and later submitted the request in writing. Agency declined Employee’s request to rescind her resignation. Employee’s tenure at Agency ended on November 5, 2021.  \nEmployee’s Position  \nEmployee asserts that OEA has jurisdiction over thi","cbCaiqRKjQUynDax","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqRKjQUynDax","pdf",243633,7,"English","# Introduction and Procedural Background\n# Issue\n# Burden of Proof\n# Jurisdiction\n# Findings of Fact, Analysis and Conclusions of Law","[{\"question\":\"What event triggered the Employee’s appeal to OEA?\",\"answer\":\"The Employee appealed contesting the end of her service at the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health after the Agency declined her request to rescind her resignation.\"},{\"question\":\"On what basis did the Administrative Judge address jurisdiction?\",\"answer\":\"The decision focuses on whether OEA’s jurisdiction was established, including timeliness of filing and the jurisdictional burdens set by OEA rules.\"},{\"question\":\"Was an evidentiary hearing held in this matter?\",\"answer\":\"No. After considering the parties’ submissions, the Administrative Judge decided that an evidentiary hearing was not required and the record was closed.\"}]","Employee v DBH OEA Matter No. J-0011-22 | PDF",1789515303]