| Comment Number: | OL-10501447 |
| Received: | 2/25/2005 9:26:36 AM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Supplementary information Appeals Subpart H Although I vehemently am against many of the "proposed" NSPS provisions, I do agree with increasing the burden of proof for Chapter 43 (performance appraisal actions) from "substantial" to "preponderance." Often there is confusion or little distinction between the two, or the way they are applied. Substantial evidence is what a reasonable person would accept as supporting a conclusion, even after considering other evidence that might take away from that conclusion. Maybe it has a 40-45% probability of being correct. I beleive that some actions that were taken using this standard would not have risen to the new level that will be required, and thus would not have been sustainable. Preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence shows that something is more likely to be true than not true, or 50% plus one. This is the standard for Chapter 75 (adverse and other actions). I believe this his standard should have been uniformly applied before this.