Ãå±±½ûµØ

Noting that UNDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. UNAT found no fault with UNDT’s rejection of the Appellant’s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA’s decision were valid and not arbitrary. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its findings that: OSLA had provided the Appellant with legal advice or assistance; OSLA conducted a full review of the cases before the contested decision was made; and OSLA had stressed that it would remain at the disposal of the Appellant to provide him with focused advice on specific legal questions and never closed its doors to the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in concluding that the Appellant had failed to meet his burden to show bias or prejudice against him as the motive for OSLA’s decision.