Federal Disability Retirement: The lethargic state of tacit acceptance

Life has a way of beating down.  Whether it is from the constant drudgery of daily responsibilities, or perhaps the overwhelming bombardment of the harsh technological stimuli foreign yet to the still evolutionary sensibilities of nature’s slow progression for adaptability; the human body, mind and soul, while possessing a capacity for resistance greater than many other species, nevertheless is contained by limits of restrictive mechanisms tested daily beyond the tolerance of allowable endurance.

It is often said that time and age will take care of any youthful idealism; for, as cynicism is the property of the older generation, folly is the playground of the younger.  Falls resulting in laughter, as opposed to empathy; tears paused by applause, as want of sympathy; but as we grow up on morsels of victorious tales from mythology and storytellings from the warmth of loved ones, that security which we were once wrapped in quickly becomes a tattered shawl unable to conceal the victimhood which haunts our inner soul.

Acceptance of one’s plight has been, throughout man’s history, the basis for longevity and survival; and the quietude of a tortured soul, nowadays, may result in a bloodletting untold in former times for their atrocity and ferocity for purposeless mayhem.

It is that lethargic state of tacit acceptance which we always have to battle against; for, we know not when that moment of quantified bevy reaches the point of no return and the boiling level of overflow; and, for each of us, the threshold of that which constitutes “enough is enough” is variable, as the genetic predisposition for an explosive overflow depends upon birth, character, and the historicity of experiential phenomena which all of us carry within as the baggage which is unseen but which exudes like gangrene and spoiled milk wreaks of a rotting soul.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have reached that point of despondency, where a medical condition has prevented the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties at the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, the time may have come, already passed, or may be nearing, when the liveliness of the inner psyche once running barefoot through the pasture of timeless childhood memories has transformed into the mummy-like vestige of what once was, and now in danger of a metamorphosis into the lethargic state of tacit acceptance.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may not always seem like a “positive step”, and may have the appearance of stoppage, cessation or even a terminal conclusion pausing forward progress; but in the end, it is the health of the body, mind and soul which should dictate the priority of one’s actions, and not a career which will go on in the bureaucracy of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal worker, whether that rotting essence lives on for a more hopeful tomorrow, or remains quietly rotting in a lethargic state of tacit acceptance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: When the superior argument no longer prevails

The potentiality of applying “jury nullification” opened the door to defiance, in a society constructed upon recognition, application and enforcement of “the law”; but of course, one may argue that such wholesale rejection of a conceptual construct deemed immoral or otherwise unfairly prejudicial, is itself a moral judgment which is allowable.

Would anyone argue that a jury which refused to convict during a trial in a repressive and totalitarian regime — say, in North Korea today, or during the Stalinist era — constituted “jury nullification”?  Or, would one simply declare that “the people” rightly and collectively decided to “stand up” against injustice, and applied a higher standard of the law — one which transcends the state’s attempt to impose an otherwise self-declared code of injustice by means of fiat and force?  It all depends upon the perspective; for, when the state empowers a group of individuals to possess, grant and apply the power of judgment rendered in the form of a verdict, then that collectivism of declared consensus constitutes the rightness or folly of a moral code itself.

In the end, the term itself is likely inappropriate; for the concept of “jury nullification” necessarily implies something underhanded or nefarious, as if the “jury” acting to “nullify” the law is somehow suspect, when in fact it is a declaration of rights asserted by means of granted power to do so.  The jury, by definition, is a law unto itself, as recognized by the state, and is therefore wholly independent and cannot be castigated for undertaking the very duty for which it was appointed to perform.

Now, as to whether or not it was receptive to, and embraced a lesser argument, as opposed to a superior one, is a fundamentally different question.  Were emotions swayed?  Did the eloquence of the opposing side overwhelm?  Did rationality and force of evidence persuade, or did the defendant’s mother back in the corner where spectators sat, weep silently and blow her nose into a soiled kerchief just enough to draw the attention of wandering eyes left pondering the fate of a devastated family? And does rationality always have to rule?  By what criteria do we demand that rationality always rule the emotive and appetitive?  Is it based upon the ancient code derived from Plato and Aristotle, of the various parts of the soul where the mind should govern the cosmos of the barbaric nature of our base selves?

But if circumstances and situations rule the day — such that in a “State of Nature” it is more advantageous for an individual to survive by pursuing instinct and animalistic aggressiveness, but in the more refined “Social Contract” basis the forms of civility and restrained interaction becomes the normative and accepted foundation, is not judgment of a fellow man a netherworld of intersecting universes, where the contradictory combining of war (a form thereof, as in a trial) and civility (of a jury deliberating in the quietude of a sequestered room) clash in culminating in a momentous fate of judgment?

The conclusion from modernity has already been rendered, of course; for, in the end, young people today care not for the force of rational argumentation, but rather, whether it “feels good”.  What reverberating consequences does such a force of change have upon society as a whole, and more specifically, for the Federal or Postal worker of today who must consider arguing to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that the Federal Disability Retirement application should be approved?

Superior arguments, of course, should always be employed; and the Federal or Postal worker should never underestimate the power of legal persuasion, or the citing of relevant laws, statutes and applicable regulations.  But there is a distinction to be made, between demanding and dereliction of decision-making.  The former is to use a hammer; the latter is to posit a systematic methodology of courteously opening the door for recognizing the sunlight of “being right”.

For the Federal or Postal worker who wants to submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under CSRS, CSRS Offset or the FERS retirement system, remember that the concept of “jury nullification” applies only when the right to decide is somehow deemed improper or unsanctioned; but when it comes to a bureaucracy which possesses the sole power to decide, it is an inapplicable construct, and must be approached in a manner more akin to the grieving mother whose murderous son suddenly appears with a suit and tie for the first time in his hideous life, and speaks eloquently of his undying love for family and the victim upon whom he perpetrated his crime, and when the wink-and-nod between son and weeping mother remains unnoticed but for the love forged in treachery, justice yet smiles even in verdicts which betray the greater society.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

b

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Identifying the Substantive Significance

We all know people who meander; whether aimlessly, or with thoughtful purpose, but in a circuitous manner belying of deliberate direction.  Instead of focusing upon the subject matter discussed, perhaps the creative impulse within constantly distracts, and so the splatter and spew of words and sentences are never formulated into a singular track from Point A to Point B, but rather, like the dow jones graph of recent phenomena, directionless outputs traversing the entire spectrum of possible ideas to touch upon.

Such creative constituents of unconventional thought processes make for interesting lives; if everyone spoke in formulations of straight methodological contents, science would rule the universe, and statistical boredom would control the monotony of the daily drone.  But recognizing the substantive core of a subject can be necessary, at crucial moments; identification, formulation and focus upon that which is significant, as opposed to peripheral matters which may be of importance in a personal manner, but irrelevant in the context of the business world or technical endeavors, cannot always be overlooked or dismissed merely for the sake of upholding creativity or charm.

The bomb expert attempting to deactivate the explosive mechanism cannot wander in thought from the task at hand; identification of that which is substantively significant must always be the primary focus of the detail, and wavering from that course of thought-process may have more than mere theoretical consequences and repercussions.

For the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties in the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, the need to file for a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, requires a level of focus, concentration, and capacity to identify the core issues to be discussed, and to create the proper legal nexus which satisfies the multiple criteria required in order to meet the eligibility mandates delineated by OPM regulations and laws.

As with every endeavor of life, preparing, formulating and filing for Federal and Postal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is never merely a logical algorithm of mathematical precision; yes, it involves a level of creativity, especially because it must inform the OPM specialist of the narrative of the medical condition and its impact upon one’s professional and personal life.  But in the end, the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker must be able to identify the substantive significance of the facts, the law, and the coexisting intersection and interplay between the two, in formulating an effective Statement of Disability as prepared on SF 3112A.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The tapestry of modernity

Every age has its feel of fabric of the times; in ages past, the woven loom of quiet hamlets with curls of smoke slowly rising from the warmth of the hearth; in others, the tension wrought at the dawn of the industrial revolution, where the ways of old and the textiles of handiworks would soon be replaced by the machines of progress.

In modernity, there is the tactile sense of restlessness, of communities splintered, where we are told that the inevitable march of progress is but for the dawn of an age of leisure, as each technological innovation will afford us greater time with out families.  Somehow, however, we are busier than ever.  Not more productive; not even happier; just a frenzy of activity to plug the holes of the dam which continually creaks with new fissures.  That is the tapestry of modernity; of a world which fits man into a cauldron of machines beyond the want of age.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who, in this day of demands beyond human capacity and tolerance, suffer from a progressively debilitating medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, there dawns a time when filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes a necessity.

Often, the upcoming fight seems like the “same old” repetition of confronting the inevitability of the progressive decline reflected in the age of technology, as bureaucracy and administrative obstacles form a conspiracy of stopping every avenue of attempted accommodations.  Life is tough; life in modernity is tougher, still.  The tapestry of modernity belies the times of yore when communities cared and banded together, replaced by the coldness of rights, benefits and entitlements.

OPM Disability Retirement benefits are there to compensate for the Federal or Postal employee who “paid the price” and now has a disability which prevents one from continuing in his or her chosen field; and the tapestry of modernity allows for that very attainment of necessity, in order for the Federal or Postal employee to move on into the next phase of civilization’s promise of hope for a future of uncertainty.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The Peril of Bypassing Process

Efficiency negates process naturally; or, if not in pure extinguishment, a progressive curtailing of the methodology of reaching from initiation Point A to finality of journey at Point B.  Additionally, when American Pragmatism combined with capitalism of the tallest order sets about to attain the greatest return in the shortest time possible, with minimizing effort and curtailing human toil, it is the end-product which is the focus, and the profit to be gained.

Relational interaction is thus cast aside; craftsmanship, the care of an artisan, and the sense of community abiding in the very linear compendium of efforts expended — they no longer matter.  That was the essence of Marx’s complaint — that the disaffected worker no longer possessed any connection to the product of his or her toil, and the separation from process resulted in the alienation of meaning.  It is, indeed, a perilous journey to forego the process; for, “how one does something” is inextricably tied with “how well one does it”.

As process is the means to get to the result, so shortening the time, length of effort and expenditure of resources, is the natural inclination, and defines that for which American efficiency has been universally praised.  For bureaucratic and administrative matters, however, it may just not be possible to curtail the conditions of one’s journey.

Thus, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file 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 desire to short-circuit the process and to forego the patience needed in order to survive the bureaucratic morass of one’s own Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, then the requisite wait at OPM, is often a painful result unhappily faced and unpreparedly encountered.

Bureaucracy by definition finds its purpose for existence in the very complexities of its own creation.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS is a process which cannot be curtailed, and any attempt to circumvent or otherwise alter the administrative and procedural content of the methodology of the journey itself, is done at the peril of the person who ponders such posturing of heretical penitence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire