Susan Moore, CSC Docket No. 2025-2053

Appellant's argumentSusan Moore, a Quality Assurance Coordinator with the Ann Klein Forensic Center (AKFC), requests that her personnel record be corrected.

BackgroundAs background, the Personnel Management Information System (PMIS) shows the following employment history for the appellant:

• April 30, 2005: The appellant received a permanent appointment to the title of Charge Nurse, 12 Months with the New Lisbon

Developmental Center.

• September 17, 2005: The appellant transferred to the Juvenile

Justice Commission (JJC).1

• May 30, 2006: The appellant resigned in good standing with an unused vacation leave balance of 57.0 hours. The appellant was paid the lump sum of $1,594.29 for the vacation leave balance (57.0 hours x $27.97 hourly rate).

• June 10, 2006: The appellant received a Temporary Special Services (TSS) appointment with JJC.

• December 9, 2006: The appellant received a provisional appointment, pending open competitive examination procedures, to the title of

Charge Nurse, 12 Months with AKFC.

1 Known as the Youth Justice Commission since March 2025. P.L. 2025, c. 35.

• November 28, 2007: The appellant’s provisional Charge Nurse, 12

Months appointment converted to permanent after her name was certified (OS070867) from the Charge Nurse, 12 Months (S9370J) eligible list.

Appellant's argumentIn her appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), filed April 4, 2025, the appellant maintains that her PMIS history is incorrect. Specifically, she claims that rather than resigning and serving in a TSS appointment, she went on a leave of absence to care for her sick mother and then transferred to the AKFC. Her argument, she contends, is supported by her paystub with a check date of July 21, 2006. This paystub reflects that the appellant was paid $1,594.29 for 57.0 hours and describes the earnings as “Restoration/Special Services.” The appellant proffers that had she really been separated, the description of earnings should have read “Vacation time.” Thus, according to her, the paystub is more reflective of a leave of absence. Further, the appellant explains that she questioned her record when she did not receive the vacation allotment that she believed she was owed. See N.J.S.A. 11A:6- 2e (25 working days for having over 20 years of continuous service). In support, she submits her mother’s death certificate, which indicates a date of death of August 29, 2006; the above-described paystub; a statement of account from the Division of Pensions and Benefits, which indicates that the appellant had 19 years and 11 months of service credit as of December 31, 2024; and another statement of account from the Division of Pensions and Benefits, which indicates that the appellant had 20 years and two months of service credit as of June 13, 2025.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, the Youth Justice Commission notes that it is unable to verify the records as it does not have the personnel file.

In response, AKFC states that the appellant’s employment records from the JJC were not forwarded to it; thus, it does not have any past records of her employment or PMIS actions with JJC. AKFC explains that after many unsuccessful attempts to effect a change, it was informed by JJC that it was unable to assist because it did not have the appellant’s personnel records and staff who had worked at JJC prior were no longer there.

Appellant's argumentIn reply, the appellant insists that her personnel record should be corrected as requested.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(b) provides that unless a different time period is stated, an appeal must be filed within 20 days after either the appellant has notice or should reasonably have known of the decision, situation, or action being appealed.

N.J.S.A. 11A:2-11c provides that the Commission shall maintain a management information system necessary to carry out the provisions of the Civil Service Act.

AnalysisThe appellant has the burden of proof in this appeal. N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4(c).

Initially, it is noted that the instant appeal is untimely. The appellant indicates that she questioned her personnel record when she did not receive the vacation allotment she was expecting at the beginning of 2025. However, the time period at issue, May 30, 2006 through December 8, 2006 – was over 18 years earlier. And while the appellant indicates that it was her 2025 vacation allotment that prompted her to question her record, apparently she did not question the timing of earlier increases in her vacation allotment. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 11A:6-2c (15 working days after five years and up to 12 years of continuous service) and N.J.S.A. 11A:6-2d (20 working days after 12 years and up to 20 years of continuous service). Further, as it is the appellant’s position that she was on a leave of absence from May 2006 to December 2006, then questions should have been raised timely over her receiving a provisional appointment, pending open competitive examination procedures, in December 2006 and a permanent appointment in November 2007 following certification procedures.

Notwithstanding the above-discussed issue of timeliness, there is no basis for relief. The appellant’s primary piece of documentary evidence is her July 21, 2006 check. Contrary to the appellant’s position, this check does not prove that she was on a leave of absence in 2006. In this regard, the check represents a $1,594.29 payout for 57.0 hours, which was the amount of her unused vacation balance as of May 30, 2006 per PMIS. See N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.2 (“An employee who leaves State government service or service with a local jurisdiction shall be paid for unused earned vacation leave, even if the employee has received an intergovernmental transfer in accordance with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.1A.”). Whether the description should have read “Vacation time,” the check, if anything, tends to suggest that the May 30, 2006 entry reflecting a separation is correct. Similarly, the two pension statements of account the appellant offers shed no light on how the specific period from May 30, 2006 through December 8, 2006 should be characterized. Further, the death certificate, while supporting the appellant’s statement that her mother was sick in 2006, does not prove the existence of a leave of absence.

Accordingly, given the significant passage of time and lack of substantive evidence, the appellant’s personnel record is best left undisturbed.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.