51ÁÔÆæ

The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and ¡°non decisions¡± concerning the processing of her claim.

The UNAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member¡¯s application challenging alleged decisions and ¡°non-decisions¡± was not receivable.

The UNAT declined the staff member¡¯s requested corrections as inappropriately attempting to persuade the UNAT to different interpretations of the facts and add new facts.

The UNAT found that its prior Judgment was clear that both the UNDT and UNAT had previously adjudicated the alleged ¡°non decision¡± and therefore there was no need for correction. The UNAT noted that the staff member was attempting to inappropriately re-litigate the Tribunals¡¯ findings.

The UNAT held that that none of the proposed changes to its prior Judgment pointed to any clerical or arithmetical mistake nor any errors arising from any accidental slip or omission on the part of the UNAT. The UNAT concluded that there was no basis to issue a correction of its prior Judgment.

The UNAT dismissed the application for correction.