Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that UNDT relied on the Appellant’s statement to ascertain that date. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on UNDT’s part. UNAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with UNDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on that ground. UNAT noted that the Appellant repeated the same arguments that she made before UNDT. UNAT held that all the alleged separate decisions the Appellant raised were either covered under the original request, time-barred themselves or not decisions subject to challenge, and therefore that UNDT properly rejected them. On the issue of the Appellant’s claim regarding separation while on service-incurred sick leave, UNAT noted the finding by UNDT that the issue of whether her sickness was service-incurred was pending before the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) and as such, any challenge to this issue before UNDT, or UNAT, was premature. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.