Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01002/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Damian C.A. Phillip
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAMIAN C.A. PHILLIP,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1002

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-15-0642-W-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 11, 2016

______________________ 

DAMIAN C.A. PHILLIP, Newport News, VA, pro se.

CALVIN M. MORROW, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

Case: 16-1002 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2016
2 PHILLIP v. MSPB

Damian C.A. Phillip appeals from the final order of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board did not err in 

finding that it lacked jurisdiction, we affirm. 

I

The Department of Veterans Affairs appointed 

Mr. Phillip to the position of Education Specialist effective 

December 15, 2013. The appointment was careerconditional requiring Mr. Phillip to satisfactorily complete

a one-year probationary period. Mr. Phillip was terminated during this probationary period for “poor performance, poor customer service, and failure to complete 

assigned tasks.” R.A. 17. 

After Mr. Phillip exhausted his administrative remedies before the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), he appealed to the Board. The administrative judge found that

the Board lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Phillip’s removal 

because he was terminated during his probationary 

period and he failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of 

discrimination based on partisan political activity or 

marital status. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 315.805, 315.806(b). 

Further, the administrative judge found that the Board 

lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Phillip’s individual right of 

action appeal (IRA) because he failed to articulate a 

nonfrivolous allegation that he engaged in whistleblowing 

activity by making protected disclosures or that his disclosures were contributing factors in the agency decision 

to remove him. Therefore, the administrative judge 

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This decision 

became the final decision of the Board on July 31, 2015. 

Mr. Phillip appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).

II

We may only hold unlawful and set aside any agency 

action, findings, or conclusions found to be “(1) arbitrary, 

Case: 16-1002 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2016
PHILLIP v. MSPB 3

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). Whether the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal is a question of law, which we review de 

novo. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 

(Fed. Cir. 1995). We are bound by the Board’s factual 

findings on which a jurisdictional determination is based 

unless those findings are not supported by substantial 

evidence. Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a termination that occurred during a probationary period unless the employee alleges the termination 

was based on partisan political reasons or marital status. 

See Pervez v. Dep’t of Navy, 193 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

1999). Here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

findings that Mr. Phillip was terminated during his oneyear probationary period and that he failed to allege that 

his termination was based on partisan political reasons or 

marital status. Therefore, the Board did not err in dismissing Mr. Phillip’s appeal from his removal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Additionally, the Board does not have jurisdiction 

over an IRA appeal under 5 U.S.C. § 1221 unless the 

petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies 

before OSC and makes a non-frivolous allegation of an 

adverse personnel action based on a protected disclosure. 

Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 618 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). A protected disclosure is “any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee 

or applicant reasonably believes evidences . . . a violation 

of any law, rule, or regulation or gross mismanagement, a 

gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 5 

U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). “Gross mismanagement is a manCase: 16-1002 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/11/2016
4 PHILLIP v. MSPB

agement action or inaction which creates a substantial 

risk of significant adverse impact to an agency’s ability to 

accomplish its mission.” Wen Chiann Yeh v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 527 Fed.Appx. 896, 900 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “An 

abuse of authority is comprised of an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by a Federal official or employee 

that adversely affects the rights of any person or results 

in personal gain or advantage to the official or preferred 

other persons.” Id. 

Here, Mr. Phillip alleges that he was wrongfully terminated based on events fabricated by his supervisor

because they had “philosophical differences.” R.A. 21. 

Mr. Phillip also alleges that “possible unscrupulous 

practices” were occurring in the office. Id. at 21–22. 

Specifically, Mr. Phillip alleged that an individual counseled him although the individual was not listed on VA 

Form 0750 as his Rater, and also that “the Administrative 

Officer (AO), was sharing information discussed with or 

sent to her by me with my two colleagues.” Id. at 21. 

The administrative judge determined that Mr. Phillip 

satisfied the exhaustion requirement but failed to make 

non-frivolous allegations that he made a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). We agree. Mr. Phillip’s 

vague allegations do not amount to a nonfrivolous allegation of an adverse personnel action based on a protected 

disclosure because the allegations do not contain information which he reasonably believed evidenced a violation of law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement, a 

gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. See 5 

U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8); Johnston v. Merit. Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 

F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“vague, conclusory or 

facially insufficient allegations” do not provide the Board 

with jurisdiction). Therefore, the Board did not err in 

dismissing Mr. Phillip’s IRA appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 16-1002 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/11/2016
PHILLIP v. MSPB 5

Because the Board properly dismissed Mr. Phillip’s

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

No costs. 

Case: 16-1002 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/11/2016