Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02533/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02533-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Homeland Security
Respondent
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Harold L. Wilborn
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HAROLD L. WILBORN,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2533

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-16-0033-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 9, 2017

______________________ 

HAROLD L. WILBORN, El Cajon, CA, pro se.

LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK,

KATHERINE M. SMITH. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 16-2533 Document: 31-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/09/2017
2 WILBORN v. MSPB

Harold L. Wilborn petitions for review of a final order 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Harold L. Wilborn was employed as a Supervisory 

Law Enforcement Communications Assistant at the 

Department of Homeland Security. At his request, he 

retired with an effective date of January 31, 2015. On 

October 12, 2015, Wilborn filed an appeal with the Board 

alleging that his retirement was involuntary and asserted 

various claims related to his alleged forced retirement. 

He also alleged claims under the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(“USERRA”) and the Whistleblower Protection Act 

(“WPA”). On July 1, 2016, the Board dismissed his appeal, concluding that Wilborn had failed to nonfrivolously 

allege facts which would support Board jurisdiction over 

his claims. Wilborn petitions for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We may set aside a Board decision if it is “(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). We review the Board’s conclusion on jurisdiction de novo and its jurisdictional factual findings for 

substantial evidence. Rosario–Fabregas v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 833 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

To establish Board jurisdiction over a constructive 

removal based on coercion, “the employee must establish 

that a reasonable employee confronted with the same 

circumstances would feel coerced into resigning.” Garcia 

v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 

Case: 16-2533 Document: 31-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/09/2017
WILBORN v. MSPB 3

2006) (en banc) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

“[T]he fact that an employee is faced with an unpleasant 

situation or that his choice is limited to two unattractive 

options does not make the employee’s decision any less 

voluntary.” Staats v. U.S. Postal Serv., 99 F.3d 1120, 

1124 (Fed. Cir. 1996). There can be no jurisdiction if the 

complainant fails to assert a nonfrivolous allegation of 

fact that, if proven, would support jurisdiction. Garcia, 

437 F.3d at 1344. Wilborn argues that his retirement was 

involuntary because he received a suspension for one day 

based on a charge of lack of candor. Wilborn also argues 

that his retirement was coerced because he received 

counseling concerning performance deficiencies, was 

placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, and was 

subsequently issued a notice of unsatisfactory performance. We agree with the Board that Wilborn has not 

nonfrivolously alleged that his decision to retire was

involuntary. 

Wilborn complains that the agency did not provide 

him with a complete investigative file in connection with 

the agency’s processing of his Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint. When an agency completes its 

investigation into a complainant’s claims of discrimination as set forth in an EEO complaint, “the agency shall 

provide the complainant with a copy of the investigative 

file.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f). Although the Board did not 

make any findings with respect to whether Wilborn 

received an investigative file, the Board determined that 

Wilborn failed to show that the alleged procedural deficiency could have influenced the voluntariness of his 

retirement. Indeed, Wilborn retired months before the 

agency completed its investigation into his EEO complaint. We see no error in the Board’s analysis in this 

regard. 

Even if the Board lacked jurisdiction over his claim 

for involuntary retirement, Wilborn asserts that the 

Case: 16-2533 Document: 31-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/09/2017
4 WILBORN v. MSPB

Board still had jurisdiction over his WPA and USERRA 

claims. Wilborn asserts that he brought an Individual 

Right of Action appeal under the WPA. However, Wilborn 

does not allege that he exhausted Office of Special Counsel procedures before filing his appeal as required by 5 

U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). In any event, we see no error in the 

Board’s determination that Wilborn failed to nonfrivolously allege that he made any protected disclosures or that 

the agency retaliated against him because of those disclosures. 

In support of his USERRA claim, Wilborn argues that 

the agency subjected him to harassment and a hostile 

work environment because of his military status. Wilborn 

also claims that the agency denied his request for accrued 

sick leave relating to a service-connected disability. We 

agree with the Board that Wilborn has failed to make a 

nonfrivolous allegation that his military service was a 

motivating factor for any agency action that he alleges he 

suffered. See 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c). 

Wilborn also asserts various discrimination claims. 

The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider discrimination claims independent of some action otherwise 

appealable to the Board. Garcia, 437 F.3d at 1325. 

Because the Board does not otherwise have jurisdiction 

over Wilborn’s appeal, the Board did not err in declining 

to evaluate these claims. 

Finally, Wilborn argues that he was denied a hearing 

before the MSPB. However, a complainant is entitled to a 

hearing only if he makes nonfrivolous allegations of fact 

that would support jurisdiction if proven. See Garcia, 437 

F.3d at 1330. Because Wilborn failed to make any such 

nonfrivolous allegation, he is not entitled to a hearing. 

We have considered Wilborn’s remaining arguments 

and conclude that they are without merit.

Case: 16-2533 Document: 31-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/09/2017
WILBORN v. MSPB 5

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2533 Document: 31-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/09/2017