Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01912/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01912-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pamela Joan Christian
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PAMELA JOAN CHRISTIAN,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1912

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-0752-15-0186-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 9, 2016

______________________ 

PAMELA JOAN CHRISTIAN, Satellite Beach, FL, pro se.

SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and DYK, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 16-1912 Document: 23-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2016
2 CHRISTIAN v. MSPB

Dr. Pamela J. Christian petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her 

appeal of her indefinite suspension by the Department of 

the Navy (“Navy” or “agency”) as untimely. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Dr. Christian worked as a scientist for the Navy. Her 

position required her to maintain a security clearance to 

have access to classified material. On April 30, 2012, Dr. 

Christian tested positive for drug use. The Navy suspended Dr. Christian’s access to classified material pending 

determination of her security clearance by the Navy’s 

Central Adjudication Facility (“DONCAF”). Because Dr. 

Christian was no longer eligible for her position by virtue 

of her access suspension, the Navy proposed her indefinite 

suspension from duty and pay. The Navy issued its final 

decision indefinitely suspending Dr. Christian on July 2, 

2012, effective July 9, 2012. 

DONCAF issued a final decision revoking her clearance and assignment to a sensitive position on January 

24, 2013. On September 9, 2013, Dr. Christian appealed 

that decision to the Personnel Security Appeals Board

(“PSAB”). On January 8, 2014, PSAB issued a final decision revoking Dr. Christian’s eligibility for a security 

clearance and assignment to a sensitive position. Dr. 

Christian resigned from her position effective January 30, 

2014. 

Dr. Christian appealed her July 9, 2012, indefinite 

suspension to the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(“Board”) on January 14, 2015. The administrative judge 

held that Dr. Christian’s appeal was untimely because it 

was not filed within 30 days of the imposition of the 

indefinite suspension or receipt of notice of the agency’s 

action and that Dr. Christian “has not shown good cause 

for her delay,” and dismissed the appeal as untimely.

Supplemental Appendix (“S.A.”) 15. The Board affirmed 

the initial decision. Dr. Christian petitions for review of 

Case: 16-1912 Document: 23-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/09/2016
CHRISTIAN v. MSPB 3

the Board decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

“This court will affirm the board’s decision to dismiss 

an untimely filed petition for review unless the decision is 

shown to have been ‘arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Olivares v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 17 F.3d 386, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting 

Phillips v. U.S. Postal Serv., 695 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. 

Cir. 1982)). 

The Board found that “[Dr. Christian] does not dispute the administrative judge’s finding that the relevant 

appealable adverse action is the imposition of her July 9, 

2012 indefinite suspension.” S.A. 4. Section 1201.22(b)(1) 

of the regulations provides, “an appeal must be filed no 

later than 30 days after the effective date . . . of the action 

being appealed, or 30 days after the date of the appellant’s receipt of the agency’s decision, whichever is later.” 

5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1). Id. Dr. Christian does not contend that she received notice of the agency’s indefinite 

suspension decision later than July 9, 2012.1 Therefore, 

under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1), her appeal was due by 

August 8, 2012. Her appeal, filed on January 14, 2015, 

was 889 days late. 

However, Dr. Christian argues that her time for filing 

an appeal should instead be governed by 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.154, which provides, 

(a) Where the appellant has been subject to an action appealable to the Board, he or she may either 

file a timely complaint of discrimination with the 

 

1 Dr. Christian does contend that she did not receive notice of the revocation of her security clearance 

until January 29, 2014, but that is irrelevant. 

Case: 16-1912 Document: 23-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/09/2016
4 CHRISTIAN v. MSPB

agency or file an appeal with the Board no later 

than 30 days after the effective date, if any, of the 

action being appealed, or 30 days after the date of 

the appellant’s receipt of the agency’s decision on 

the appealable action, whichever is later. 

(b) If the appellant has filed a timely formal complaint of discrimination with the agency: 

(1) An appeal must be filed within 30 days after the appellant receives the agency resolution or final decision on the discrimination 

issue; or

(2) If the agency has not resolved the matter 

or issued a final decision on the formal complaint within 120 days, the appellant may appeal the matter directly to the Board at any 

time after the expiration of 120 calendar days.

Id. 

This provision is inapplicable because Dr. Christian 

did not submit a formal discrimination complaint. Rather, 

Dr. Christian filed a grievance pursuant to the negotiated 

Grievance Procedure Agreement between the agency and 

her union, the Federal Union of Scientists and Engineers.

See Pet’r’s App’x 24 (“This grievance is being filed in 

accordance with [FUSE / NUWC Negotiated Grievance 

Procedure] . . . .”). The filing of a grievance under the 

negotiated grievance procedure precluded Dr. Christian 

from filing a formal discrimination complaint. See 29 

C.F.R. 1614.301(a) (“[A] person wishing to file a complaint 

or a grievance on a matter of alleged employment discrimination must elect to raise the matter under either part 

Case: 16-1912 Document: 23-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/09/2016
CHRISTIAN v. MSPB 5

1614 or the negotiated grievance procedure, but not 

both.”).2 

Dr. Christian also argues that her late filing should be 

excused under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22, because she established 

good cause for the delay.

Dr. Christian asserts that she had good cause for her 

untimely filing because she learned, for the first time in 

August 2014, of the Board’s decision in Schnedar v. Dep’t 

of the Air Force, No. DE-0752-11-0343-B-1, 2014 WL 

172347, at *519 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 16, 2014), holding that it 

had authority to review whether the agency complied 

with its own procedures for taking an adverse action 

based on a revocation of security clearance, and of the 

existence of certain Department of Defense regulations. 

But we have held that “that the discovery of additional 

legal arguments after the time period for filing a petition 

for review does not constitute good cause for waiver of the 

filing deadline.” Nelson v. F.D.I.C., 83 F.3d 1375, 1376 

(Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citations 

 

2 Dr. Christian argues that the agency’s failure to 

provide her adequate notice of appeal rights with respect 

to an “arbitration (grievance) decision” constitutes good 

cause for untimely filing. Pet’r’s Informal Br. at 8. Any 

agency failure to provide her documentation or notice of 

appeal rights as to her grievance is irrelevant to her 

failure to appeal her indefinite suspension to the Board. 

Moreover, the union never invoked arbitration. No such 

decision issued, and therefore no appeal rights attached. 

See, e.g., Parks v. Smithsonian Inst., No. DC07528810345, 

39 M.S.P.R. 346, 349 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 28, 1988) (“The final 

decision rendered pursuant to a negotiated grievance 

procedure, which is then appealable to the Board under 5 

U.S.C. § 7121(d), is the arbitrator’s decision in cases 

where the grievance procedure provides for arbitration as 

the last resort.”).

Case: 16-1912 Document: 23-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/09/2016
6 CHRISTIAN v. MSPB

omitted). Dr. Christian argues that the Board should have 

found that her alcoholism constituted good cause for her 

delay. The Board found, however, that “none of [Dr. 

Christian’s] allegations or medical documentation suggests any limitations on her ability to conduct [her] own 

affairs or otherwise suggest her addiction caused any 

delay. [] At bottom, she has made no showing her addiction affected or impaired her ability to file an action.” S.A. 

15. 

We perceive no legal error or abuse of discretion in the 

Board’s determination that Dr. Christian did not show 

good cause for her delay. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 16-1912 Document: 23-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/09/2016