Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Disambiguation

Aside from being an ugly word, it begins with the premise of negation and mistake.  As a reversing force, it clearly undermines the root word and takes away from the primary centrality of meaning.  It is the ambiguity which needs to be corrected.

In narrative forms, where stated purpose is important to convey, to begin with a lack of communicative clarity presents a problem of origins.  Where one begins; how one came to be formed; the historical context of one’s existence; these are all contained in the roots of the pretext of being:  “The beginning…”

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers embarking upon the voyage of formulating, preparing and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the important lessons to be gleaned from such a concept is that the vehicle of the written word is best put forth at the outset without a later need for correction.

Arguing one’s medical condition, and the linguistic bridge between one’s positional description of duties for a Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service job, requires a clear and linear methodology of logical argumentation.  Preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application should not lead the reviewer at OPM to scratch one’s head in confusion; rather, there should be an unwavering “point-by-point” roadmap like an unequivocal teleology of straight and narrow discourse, without confusion, without puzzlement, and certainly without the creation of an endless maze.

There are times when convoluted discourse has an intended effect, and where lack of core clarity may have its advantages (look, for instance, at politicians who dissemble for obvious reasons on those sensitive “issues” during a debate); but walking on a bridge without railings on a thick misty morning has its dangers, and it is better not to have fallen, than to learn that the depths of the rushing waters below requires more than just an ordinary swimmer’s strength.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Word Additions

When viewing a landscape, does the utterance of words add anything to the beauty or desolation?  When rage wells up within a tormented soul, do words which convey a rational thought process ameliorate the temperament in any way?  Whether, in the evolutionary progression of one’s biological apparatus, the appearance of language beyond fundamental communication (e.g., for advanced warning of dangers, conveying of location, and similarly basic devices of informational immediacy) enhances the meaningfulness of the thing itself, is a question beyond mere pedantic interest.

Does a person add anything to the beauty of a red dawn, by describing it with words and conceptual constructs?  Or, better yet, do we glean any greater understanding by descriptive means, or does it merely camouflage the exquisiteness of the thing itself?  There are exceptions.

Medical conditions, and the need to understand their origin, impact, treatment modalities and prognosis allow for individuals to makes decisions based upon information gathered.  The pain itself, or the destructive and progressively debilitating nature of a medical condition, may not require descriptive devices of deciphering linguistic dalliances; but for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who must map out one’s future course of actions, the words which one chooses to employ can make all the difference in the conceptual world we live in.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit available to all Federal and Postal employees who find themselves with a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.

For Federal and Postal employees under FERS (which most Federal and Postal employees are under, inasmuch as CSRS and CSRS Offset employees are becoming rarer by the year), a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service must be accumulated; but once that threshold is met, it is the evidentiary sufficiency based upon the legal criteria as mandated by statute, the courts, and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which must be complied with through the use of words.

In viewing beauty, words rarely add; in experiencing feelings, language often merely complicates; but in engaging a complex bureaucratic process, words and conceptual constructs add to the future viability of one’s capacity to meet the complex challenges of an ever-changing world.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire