Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03190/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03190-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Treasury
Respondent
Raymanda Preacely
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RAYMANDA PREACELY,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3190

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-4324-12-0521-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 7, 2015

______________________ 

RAYMANDA PREACELY, of Chicago Heights, Illinois, pro 

se. 

HEIDI L. OSTERHOUT, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her 

on the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, 

and STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM, Assistant Director. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-3190 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/07/2015
2 PREACELY v. TREASURY

Before LOURIE, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Raymanda Preacely (“Preacely”) appeals from the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the 

“Board”) denying her claim under the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4335 (2012). See Preacely 

v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. CH-4324-12-0521-B-1 

(M.S.P.B. Aug. 1, 2014) (“Final Decision”). Because the 

Board did not err in denying the petition for review and in

affirming the initial decision, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) employed Preacely as a secretary. Before her one-year 

probationary period ended, Treasury terminated Preacely’s employment. Preacely filed a first appeal at the 

Board, in which the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) issued 

an initial decision finding that her employment was 

terminated during her probationary period and accordingly dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The 

Board denied her petition for review, and the initial 

decision became the final decision of the Board. Preacely 

v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. CH-315H-11-0535-I-1 

(M.S.P.B. Jan. 26, 2012). She appealed to this court, but 

her appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Preacely filed a second appeal at the Board, alleging 

that her termination was discriminatory, and therefore 

both violated her rights under USERRA and breached her 

employment contract. The AJ dismissed the second 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and Preacely filed another 

petition for review. The Board agreed with the AJ that it 

lacked jurisdiction over her breach of contract claim, but 

remanded the case for adjudication of her USERRA claim. 

Preacely v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. CH-4324-12-0521-I-1 

(M.S.P.B. Sept. 6, 2013). On remand, the AJ found that 

Case: 14-3190 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/07/2015
PREACELY v. TREASURY 3

Preacely failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that her prior military service or status as a veteran was a substantial or motivating factor in the agency’s 

decision to terminate her employment during her probationary period. Preacely v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. CH4324-12-0521-B-1 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 25, 2014).

Preacely again filed a petition for review, but the 

Board denied the petition and affirmed the AJ’s initial 

decision, adopting it as the Board’s final decision. Final 

Decision at ¶ 1. Specifically, the Board agreed with the 

AJ and held that Preacely failed to meet her burden of 

showing that her military status was a substantial or 

motivating factor in her termination. Id. at ¶ 5–6. The 

Board also declined to consider the additional evidence 

provided on review because Preacely failed to show that 

the evidence was unavailable to her before the close of the 

record, and she failed to show how the evidence demonstrated that her military service was a substantial or 

motivating factor in her termination. Id. at ¶ 7.

Preacely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the decision of the Board unless we 

find it to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained 

without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation 

having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial 

evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).

An employee asserting a claim of discrimination under USERRA bears the initial burden of showing, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the employee’s veteran status was “a substantial or motivating factor for an 

adverse employment action.” Erickson v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., 571 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “[M]ilitary 

service is a motivating factor for an adverse employment 

Case: 14-3190 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/07/2015
4 PREACELY v. TREASURY

action if the employer relied on, took into account, considered, or conditioned its decision on” the employee’s veteran status. Id. (internal quotations omitted). However, 

the employer does not violate USERRA if it can prove that 

the action would have been taken in the absence of the 

military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c); Sheehan v. Dep’t of 

the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Preacely contends that the Board erroneously interpreted the law pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1208.15, and should 

have applied 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(a)(4) to remand the case 

for the AJ to take further testimony or evidence or make 

further findings or conclusions. She also contends that 

the Board erred in not accepting the additional evidence 

under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.58(c)(2).

The government responds that the Board followed 

proper procedures, considered her testimony and the 

evidence of record, applied the correct law, and found that 

Treasury terminated Preacely’s employment for reasons 

not related to her veteran status. The government also 

responds that the Board did not err in refusing to consider 

the additional evidence submitted for the first time with 

the petition for review. 

We conclude that the Board’s decision was supported 

by substantial evidence that Preacely failed to show that 

her veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor 

for her termination, and therefore that the Board did not 

err in denying the petition for review and affirming the 

initial decision. See, e.g., Motley v. Dep’t of the Navy, 317 

Fed. App’x 975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We agree with the 

government that the Board did not err in interpreting the 

law to require proof of a substantial or motivating factor 

for a USERRA claim. In addition, it was Preacely’s 

burden to show, as she has not, that her veteran status 

was such a factor in Treasury’s decision to terminate her 

during her probationary period. We also agree with the 

government that the Board did not err in declining to 

Case: 14-3190 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/07/2015
PREACELY v. TREASURY 5

consider the additional evidence because Preacely did not 

allege that the evidence was in rebuttal to new evidence 

or argument, that it was unavailable to her before the 

close of the record, or how it demonstrated that her military status was a substantial or motivating factor in her 

termination. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and in light of our limited 

standard of review and the record before us, the decision 

of the Board is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-3190 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/07/2015