Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01012/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Justice
Respondent
Tracey Lynn McMillon
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRACEY LYNN MCMILLON,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1012

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-3330-15-0490-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 10, 2016

______________________ 

TRACEY LYNN MCMILLON, Norfolk, VA, pro se.

PETER ANTHONY GWYNNE, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. 

______________________ 

Before CHEN, CLEVENGER, and BRYSON, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-1012 Document: 28-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2016
2 MCMILLON v. DOJ

PER CURIAM. 

Tracey L. McMillon seeks review of the final decision 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying 

her request for corrective action in connection with her 

application for the position of Statistician, GS Series 

1530, at the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). 

McMillon v. Dep’t of Justice, No. DC3330-15-0490-I-1 

(M.S.P.B. July 31, 2015). For the reasons set forth below, 

we affirm the Board’s final decision.

I 

In May of 2014, Ms. McMillon applied for a vacant 

Statistician position, announced at grade levels GS-11, 

GS-12 and GS-13, in the Intelligence Division at DEA 

headquarters in Arlington, VA. The Human Resources 

Department (“HR”) at DEA prepared three lists, known as 

Best Qualified Lists, of eligible candidates for the position 

at each of the three GS levels. HR initially determined 

that Ms. McMillon was not qualified for the position, and 

consequently her name did not appear on any of the Best 

Qualified Lists. On June 6, 2014, another applicant, a 

veteran, was selected for the position from the GS-13 Best 

Qualified List, but declined the position. Ms. McMillon 

asked for reconsideration of the determination that she 

was not qualified, and thereafter HR determined that Ms. 

McMillon was qualified as a GS-12 candidate, and accordingly amended the GS-12 Best Qualified List to include 

her name. The amended list was sent to the Intelligence 

Division selecting official, who had electronic access to the 

candidates’ applications. The selecting official and other 

members of the Intelligence Division management interviewed Ms. McMillon in person on July 15, 2014. On 

September 14, 2014, Ms. McMillon was informed that 

another person had been selected for the position from the 

GS-12 Best Qualified List.

Ms. McMillon then filed a claim with the Department 

of Labor (“DOL”) alleging that her rights under the VetCase: 16-1012 Document: 28-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2016
MCMILLON v. DOJ 3

erans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”)

had been violated by the DEA. After investigating her 

claim, DOL determined that her VEOA rights had not 

been violated by DEA’s hiring process. In March of 2015, 

Ms. McMillon filed an appeal with the Board, challenging 

DOL’s determination.

The Board affirmed DOL’s decision. It noted that the 

record was not entirely clear as to the theory on which 

Ms. McMillon asserted her VEOA rights. The Board’s 

deciding opinion noted that the VEOA affords advantages 

in both the competitive examination process and the 

merits promotion process. In the former process, additional points are added to the final rating scores of preference eligible applicants, with preference eligible 

applicants being ranked ahead of others applicants with 

the same score. By contrast, in merits promotions, the 

special advantage is simply the opportunity to compete for 

vacancies that are otherwise open only to current agency 

employees. The Board concluded that whichever process 

was used by DEA in this case (that being the unclear 

point), Ms. McMillon could not prevail. Because she had 

not, despite specific requests therefor, provided documentation showing her entitlement to additional points for a 

competitive examination process, she could not show error 

under VEOA in a competitive examination process. And 

because the record showed that she was included on the 

Best Qualified List for the position, and was in fact interviewed for the position, she could not show that she had 

been denied the opportunity to compete in a merits promotion process. The fact that DEA offered the job to 

another person before Ms. McMillon had been deemed 

qualified was held irrelevant to Ms. McMillon’s case, 

because the person selected declined the job and hence 

left the opportunity open to Ms. McMillon. Accordingly, 

the Board affirmed DOL’s decision.

Case: 16-1012 Document: 28-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/10/2016
4 MCMILLON v. DOJ

II

Ms. McMillon timely sought review of the Board’s final decision in this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). The scope of our appellate review of

the Board’s final decision is defined by statute. In 5 

U.S.C. § 7703(c), Congress provided that we can only 

upset the final decision of the Board if we determine that 

it is arbitrary, capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. Where the Board’s final 

decision rests on findings of fact, those findings must be 

supported by substantial evidence.

III

Ms. McMillon pitches her petition for review in this 

court on her assertion that DEA denied her the right to 

compete for the job, because in the process, the agency 

used an erroneous certification list, and extended an offer 

of employment before she was deemed qualified. In her 

supplemental brief, Ms. McMillon asserts that her interview was a sham to cover up agency mistakes, and that 

she was never given any documentation concerning the 

GS-11 Best Qualified List.

DEA’s error in proceeding initially without Ms. 

McMillon on a Best Qualified List was, as determined by 

the Board, harmless, because the person initially selected 

declined the job, leaving it open for Ms. McMillon to 

compete. And compete she did, by having her application 

considered and receiving an interview for the job. On the 

record before us, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s determination that Ms. McMillon’s 

VEOA right to compete was not violated.

As for her contention that the interview was a sham, 

Ms. McMillon has no facts of record to support her claim, 

nor has she asserted that she requested DEA to consider 

her at the lower level, or made a case that she was 

harmed by not receiving the GS-11 documentation.

Case: 16-1012 Document: 28-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/10/2016
MCMILLON v. DOJ 5

Under our standard of review, we see no error in the 

Board’s final decision, which is

AFFIRMED.

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 16-1012 Document: 28-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/10/2016