Part Four covered the three questions the Board answers. This part covers what the decision is, what happens to it, and who can still change it.
Most of the attention in an appeal goes to getting the filing right. The provisions below decide what a favorable decision is actually worth, and they run in both directions.
What the Board Can Do
Section 6.H of the directive:
Three outcomes. The action stands, the penalty is reduced, or the action is set aside. Section 6.D(2) adds the limit already noted in Part Four, that the Board "may mitigate a penalty but may not impose a harsher penalty," so an appeal carries no risk of a worse result from the Board itself.
Section 6.I gives the Board authority to issue orders dismissing appeals for lack of jurisdiction or untimeliness, and other orders necessary to reach or implement a decision.
Every decision is written and signed by the Chair, under Section K(1) of the handbook.
Getting a Decision Implemented
A decision in an officer's favor is not the end of the work. Section K(3) of the handbook:
Section M covers what happens when that does not occur:
No deadline attaches, and no remedy is described.
The phrase "insofar as possible, be complete and self-executing" is doing more work than it appears to. A decision that specifies exactly what management must do leaves less room for a compliance dispute than one that does not, and what a decision says is shaped by what the appeal asked for. This is the reason Part Two dwelt on the fifth required item, relief requested with justification.
Against Giants writes relief requests that are specific enough to be self-executing, because a vague win is the one that stalls.
Reconsideration Runs Both Ways
Section L of the handbook opens with a provision that is easy to read past:
Reconsideration does not require a party to ask. The AA/HC or the Board may reopen a decision without either side requesting it.
When a party does ask, the standard is narrow. Section L(1):
Section 6.J of the directive says the same, that reconsideration may be requested "only" on those two grounds. This is not a second appeal and it is not a place to make a better version of the original argument. Compelling evidence of a misinterpretation or a misapplication is the entire opening.
Management may request reconsideration on the same terms. An officer who prevails at the Board faces a fourteen day window in which management may file, and separately faces the possibility above, which carries no deadline in the text at all.
Section L(1) also allows the decision to be held while that plays out: pending action on a request, the Board or the AA/HC may direct that any action ordered in a decision be held in abeyance.
Against Giants can assess whether a reconsideration request meets that standard before you spend the fourteen days, and can respond to one filed by management.
Who Decides Reconsideration
Not the Board. Section L(2) routes it elsewhere:
The Chair forwards. The Assistant Administrator for Human Capital decides. Under Section L(2)(a) and (b), the AA/HC either reaches the same decision, in which case the original stands and a Decision on Reconsideration issues, or changes or modifies the Board's decision and issues a Decision on Reconsideration. Section L(2)(c) sets a target of fourteen days.
The three member panel that heard the case does not decide whether it got the case right.
One limit does not travel with the case. Section 6.D(2) of the directive bars the Board from imposing a harsher penalty than management chose. Neither Section L of the handbook nor Section 6.J of the directive repeats that limit for the AA/HC, and Section L(2)(b) describes the reconsideration outcome only as changing or modifying the Board's decision.
And Above That
Section L(3) is a single sentence:
At his or her discretion. The handbook attaches no standard, no timeline, no requirement that either party be notified, and no procedure for responding.
TSA's FAQ describes reconsideration at Question 7 and covers the fourteen day window, the two grounds, the other party's right to respond, and the AA/HC's role. It does not mention that the AA/HC or the Board may reconsider on their own initiative, and it does not mention the Administrator at all. An officer relying on the FAQ would not know either provision exists.
Records
Section N is the last provision in the handbook, and it is brief. The Board maintains records of its decisions in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Section 6.B(2) of the directive adds that the decision date and the votes are recorded in the case file.
Nothing in either document provides for publication of decisions, for access to prior decisions, or for any decision to have effect on a later case. An officer arguing that a penalty is inconsistent with those imposed on similarly situated employees, which is one of the twelve penalty factors, has no body of Board decisions to point to.
The End of the Series
Five articles, and the through line is the same in each. TSA built the Board in three documents and then put the standards that decide outcomes somewhere else, in the discipline directive, its handbook, and a table of penalties from 2018. An officer is expected to argue against material the appeal documents name but never contain.
Supervisors have the least room here. TSA's own FAQ describes the Board as their sole avenue for appeal, and every step the handbook provides after a Board decision runs through an official rather than a panel.
Against Giants advocates for federal transportation security employees through every step of this process, from the decision letter to implementation. The first conversation costs nothing. againstgiantsllc.com/get-help.html or info@againstgiantsllc.com