Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01889/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01889-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Commerce
Respondent
Charles H. Johnson
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHARLES H. JOHNSON,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2023-1889

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. CH-3443-13-1466-B-2, CH-4324-13-0112-B2.

______________________ 

Decided: January 16, 2024 

______________________ 

CHARLES H. JOHNSON, Detroit, MI, pro se. 

 DELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD 

THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 23-1889 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 01/16/2024
2 JOHNSON v. COMMERCE

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Charles H. Johnson appeals from a Final Order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his petition for review and affirming the denial of his request for 

corrective action. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Johnson is a preference eligible veteran who served 

over 16 years in the Air Force. Appx. 50.1 Between 1998 

and 2010, Mr. Johnson held various temporary appointments within the Department of Commerce. In 2012 and 

2013, Mr. Johnson filed appeals with the Board challenging the termination of his employment with Commerce and 

alleging discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994

(USERRA) (codified as amended in 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–

4335). Appx. 12, 23. The Board dismissed the portions of 

the appeals challenging Mr. Johnson’s termination for lack 

of jurisdiction because Mr. Johnson was not a covered employee pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7511. Appx. 14–15, 24. The 

Board dismissed the USERRA portion of the appeals for 

lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Johnson did not allege his 

military service was a substantial or motivating factor in 

his termination. Appx. 15–16. 

On petition for review, the full Board joined the cases

and affirmed the decisions regarding lack of jurisdiction 

over the termination challenges. Appx. 33. The Board remanded for the administrative judge to provide Mr. Johnson notice of his jurisdictional burdens and for a hearing 

1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed with Respondent’s Corrected Informal Brief. 

Case: 23-1889 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 01/16/2024
JOHNSON v. COMMERCE 3

on the merits of his USERRA claim. Appx. 38. On remand, 

the administrative judge notified Mr. Johnson of his jurisdictional burden under USERRA. Appx. 76–90. 

Mr. Johnson filed a motion arguing that Commerce’s 

failure to provide him notice of his rights to appeal under 

the Demonstration Projects created by the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 and extended by the Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010 (2004/2010 Demonstration 

Projects) established Board jurisdiction. Order on Appellant’s Motion for Jurisdiction and Closing the Record at 1, 

Johnson v. Dept. of Commerce, No. CH-4324-13-0112-B-2 

(M.S.P.B. July 15, 2016) (July 16 Order). The administrative judge denied the motion because the 2004/2010 

Demonstration Projects do not create additional USERRA 

jurisdiction. Id. at 2. The Board’s subsequent Initial Decision denied Mr. Johnson’s claim for corrective action under 

USERRA. Appx. 54–55. In its Final Decision, the Board

denied Mr. Johnson’s petition for review and affirmed the 

Board’s Initial Decision. Appx. 64. Mr. Johnson appeals. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a final decision of the Board, we must 

“hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, 

or conclusions found 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). Whether the 

Board lacks jurisdiction is a question of law we review de 

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

Cir. 1995). The Board must provide notice to an appellant 

of his burden to demonstrate jurisdiction (Burgess notice). 

Burgess v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 758 F.2d 641, 643–44 (Fed. 

Cir. 1985). 

Mr. Johnson argues the Board erred in dismissing his 

USERRA claim related to the 2004/2010 Demonstration 

Case: 23-1889 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 01/16/2024
4 JOHNSON v. COMMERCE

Projects. Appellant Brief at 9–10. Mr. Johnson asserts the 

Board failed to provide Burgess notice of the jurisdictional 

requirements for USERRA claims brought under the 

2004/2010 Demonstration Projects. Id. at 6; see also Reply

Brief at 8.

The Board properly rejected Mr. Johnson’s jurisdictional argument in its July 2016 Order. July 16 Order at 

2. The 2004/2010 Demonstration Projects allowed a subset 

of USERRA complaints filed during a specific time period 

to be investigated by the Office of Special Counsel. Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–

454, § 204, 118 Stat. 3598, 3606 (2004); Veterans’ Benefits 

Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–275, § 105, 124 Stat. 2864,

2868 (2010). The 2004/2010 Demonstration Projects did 

not provide any additional basis for Board jurisdiction. See

Appx. 52. The Board was therefore not required to provide

a separate Burgess notice for how to establish jurisdiction. 

Because the Board’s original Burgess notice for Mr. Johnson’s USERRA claim was sufficient, we affirm. Appx. 77–

82.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Johnson’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1889 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 01/16/2024