text: Board's report had decided to maintain the contested decision and to take no further action on his case. On 10 February 1989, the Applicant filed with the Tribunal the application referred to earlier. Whereas the Applicant's principal contentions are: 1.The Applicant and his family were injured because of medical malpractice by the Respondent.- 9 - 2.The Applicant and his family suffered mental anguish because of defamation of the Applicant's character by the Respondent. 3.The conduct by the Respondent caused material and physical damage to the Applicant's job opportunities. 4.The Respondent violated the Applicant's rights to due process of law. 5.The Applicant did not appeal to the JAB the administrative decision dated 23 April 1986, and therefore the JAB had no basis for considering any issues arising out of that decision. Whereas the Respondent's principal contentions are: 1.Fixed-term appointments carry no expectancy of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. 2.One of the paramount considerations in the appointment of staff is to ensure that they meet the highest standards of integrity. 3.Neither the initial decision not to offer the Applicant a new fixed-term appointment, nor the decision to withdraw the offer of re-employment, was discriminatory. 4.No compensation is due to the Applicant. 5.Consideration of the Applicant's claims not raised in the JAB proceedings is not within the competence of the Tribunal in view of paragraph 1 of article 7 of its Statute. The Tribunal, having deliberated from 24 April to 11 May 1990, now pronounces the following judgement: I.The Applicant served the Organization since 1 May 1982 as a Security Officer in the Field Service category. He was assigned to UNTSO and was granted a succession of fixed-term appointments until- 10 - 31 May 1985, the expiration date of his contract. II.The Applicant appeals against the administrative decision
analysis: This text appears to be a legal document related to a dispute between an individual (the Applicant) and an organization (the Respondent), specifically regarding a job-related issue. The content focuses on the Applicant's claims of medical malpractice, defamation, damage to job opportunities, and violation of due process, as well as the Respondent's defenses and the Tribunal's judgment. The language and structure of the text suggest a legal context, which may involve employment, labor, or human rights issues.