Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01018/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Kenneth Vanderford
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KENNETH VANDERFORD,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1018

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. SF-300A-15-0006-I-1, SF-3330-14-0556-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: August 1, 2016 

______________________ 

KENNETH VANDERFORD, San Diego, CA, pro se.

ALISON VICKS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., REGINALD T. BLADES,

JR. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, MOORE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/01/2016
2 VANDERFORD v. DVA

Newman, Circuit Judge.

Kenneth Vanderford appeals the decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board, denying his appeal of nonselection for a position advertised by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs for “preference eligible veterans only.” 

Mr. Vanderford also appeals the MSPB’s dismissal of his 

related employment practices claim. We affirm the MSPB

rulings.1

BACKGROUND

Mr. Vanderford is a preference-eligible veteran with a 

service-connected disability rated at 30% or more. On 

February 13, 2014 the Department of Veterans Affairs 

announced two WG-1 Housekeeping Aid positions with 

the Veterans Health Administration San Diego 

Healthcare System. The announcement stated that the 

two positions are limited to preference eligible veterans. 

Mr. Vanderford applied, submitting a résumé, occupational questionnaire, and proof of his status as a preference-eligible veteran.

The VA duly prepared two certificates of eligible applicants, one certificate notated as “competitive referral” 

and one notated as “non-competitive referral.” Nine 

applicants, all preference-eligible veterans, appeared on 

each certificate, sorted alphabetically. There was some 

overlap between the two listings, and Mr. Vanderford’s 

name appeared on both certificates. Mr. Vanderford was 

not selected. He filed a complaint with the Department of 

Labor (DOL), stating that his non-selection violated the 

Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA). The 

DOL, after an investigation, denied Mr. Vanderford’s 

claim, finding that the VA used Merit Promotion Plan 

 

1 Vanderford v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Nos. SF330-14-0556-I-1, SF-300A-15-0006-I-1, 2015 WL 4606221 

(MSPB August 3, 2015).

Case: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/01/2016
VANDERFORD v. DVA 3

(MPP) procedures, which are not subject to review by the 

Department of Labor.

Mr. Vanderford appealed to the MSPB, stating that 

under competitive examination procedures in accordance 

with the VEOA he is entitled to ten veterans preference 

points, and that he should have been listed at the top of 

the certificates. He also stated that his application was 

not given bona fide consideration because his nonselection 

was coded as “NS” (nonselected) rather than “NN” (not 

contacted). He also stated that the positions had been 

filled by non-veterans. 

The MSPB found that the persons selected were preference eligible veterans, and that the positions were filled 

through MPP procedures for which no veterans preference 

points are applied. The MSPB found that Mr. Vanderford 

was not denied the right to compete for the positions, and

that he was not selected after consideration of the qualifications of all the applicants. The MSPB explained that 

veterans preference points do not apply in MPP hiring, 

and thus do not apply in the hiring process here utilized. 

The MSPB held that the VA did not violate any veterans 

preference law in using the MPP process instead of a 

competitive process applying veterans preference points.

Mr. Vanderford also complained that the vacancy announcement and hiring process was an employment 

practice in violation of the equal opportunity requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103. The MSPB held that it did 

not have jurisdiction over Mr. Vanderford’s employment 

practices claim, because “an individual agency action or 

decision that is not a rule or practice of some kind does 

not qualify as an employment practice.” MSPB Decision

¶ 17.

Mr. Vanderford appeals.

Case: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/01/2016
4 VANDERFORD v. DVA

DISCUSSION

We review a Board decision to ascertain whether it 

was (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or 

otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without following the procedures required by law; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see 

Barrett v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 309 F .3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). Factual findings of the Board are sustained unless 

they are not supported by substantial evidence. See 

Bolton v. M.S.P.B., 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

I 

Preference eligible veterans receive statutory benefits

in federal employment. See Lazaro v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discussing 

statutes and regulations that provide veterans preference). Veterans receive preference in both the competitive 

examination hiring process and the MPP hiring process.

The competitive examination process is open to the 

public and the hiring decision is premised on the rating 

and ranking of the candidates, with additional weight

assigned to veteran status. 5 C.F.R. § 332.101. The 

agency must comply with special statutes and regulations 

when it evaluates a veteran for a given position. Lazaro, 

666 F.3d at 1318. For example, in the competitive examination process, preference eligible veterans are entitled to 

an additional 5 points above a rating based on qualifications, and disabled veterans are entitled to an additional

10 points. 5 U.S.C. § 3309.

The MPP process is used when the position is designated to be filled by a current competitive service employee, but in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) and 5 

C.F.R. § 335.103(b)(1) preference eligible veterans have 

the right to be considered for positions otherwise open 

only to persons who are already employed in the competitive service. When applying under the MPP process, a 

Case: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/01/2016
VANDERFORD v. DVA 5

preference eligible veteran does not receive veterans 

preference points. Joseph, 505 F.3d at 1383-84. Instead, 

5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) entitles veterans to compete on the 

same grounds as other applicants. 

The MPP procedure may also be used to fill positions 

restricted by regulation to preference eligible veterans, 

such as these Housekeeping Aid positions. See 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3310; 5 C.F.R. §§ 330.401, 330.402.

Mr. Vanderford argues that the Housekeeping Aid positions were improperly filled by the MPP procedure, and 

that veterans preference points should have been applied. 

As support, Mr. Vanderford points to his numerical score 

indicated in the March 5, 2014 email from the agency, the 

notation of the referral certificates as “non-competitive” 

and “competitive,” and the occupational questionnaire he 

filled out as part of the application process. Mr. Vanderford’s arguments are rooted in the confusing terminology 

and procedures and the murkiness of the agency’s presentation both below and on appeal. Given the complexity of 

federal hiring procedures and the baffling terminology, we

address the concerns raised by Mr. Vanderford.

Under MPP procedures, we understand that questionnaires such as the one Mr. Vanderford filled out are 

used to assist the agency in evaluating whether an applicant possesses job-related knowledge, skills, and capabilities. This evaluation may take the form of a numeric 

score, but for the MPP procedure, the numeric score does 

not include veterans preference points. The VA states 

that such numeric scores are used only to create a list of 

the best qualified applicants to be referred to the selecting 

official by way of the “competitive referral” certificate. 

The term “competitive” does not refer to competitive 

examination hiring, and the numeric scores are not used 

to rank the referred applicants. 

Some positions to be filled under the MPP procedure

also permit “non-competitive referral,” whereby preferCase: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/01/2016
6 VANDERFORD v. DVA

ence eligible veterans may be referred to the selecting 

official on a certificate, even if they are only minimally 

qualified. The VA explains that these candidates, including disabled veterans, may be referred for consideration 

regardless of whether they are within the best qualified

category. Non-competitive referral requires that the 

candidate meets the minimum qualifications; listing does 

not mean that the candidate will be selected. It is possible for a particular candidate to be included on both the 

competitive and non-competitive referral lists as was Mr. 

Vanderford.

The Board determined that these Housekeeping Aid 

positions were properly filled by the MPP procedure. One 

of the positions was filled with a candidate from the 

“competitive referral” certificate. This candidate had a 

lower numeric score than did Mr. Vanderford. The MSPB 

stated that the use of scores to evaluate applicants’ qualifications did not transform the MPP procedure into a 

competitive examination procedure, and that the MPP

procedure permits the agency to consider all of an applicant’s qualifications. On this reasoning, the MSPB held

that an agency operating under the MPP procedure may

properly hire a candidate with a lower score, without 

violating any requirement of veterans preference. Precedent supports this ruling, explaining that “[a]ll that [5 

U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1)] entitles veterans to is ‘the opportunity 

to compete for vacant positions’ to be filled . . . .” Joseph, 

505 F.3d at 1383. 

Mr. Vanderford was listed on the competitive certificate as one of nine best qualified candidates, and he was 

listed on the non-competitive certificate because of his 

status as a disabled veteran. The selecting official declared that he considered Mr. Vanderford’s qualifications

but did not choose him because, in his judgment, he was 

not one of the two best qualified candidates on the lists. 

The MSPB found no error in the agency’s procedures.

Case: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/01/2016
VANDERFORD v. DVA 7

Mr. Vanderford argues that various procedural errors 

were made by the administrative judge (AJ) or the full 

Board. He states that the Board failed to take into account his June 18, 2014 response to the June 10, 2014 

Jurisdictional Order; that the Board improperly denied 

his motion of October 10, 2014 to “get clarity with respect 

to ‘which veterans’ preference rights’ the administrative 

judge was actually considering”; and improperly decided 

in favor of the VA after the AJ cancelled the scheduled 

hearing at Mr. Vanderford’s request.

Waiver of a hearing does not require a favorable ruling on the merits. For the requested clarification, the AJ 

issued a pre-hearing order shortly after Mr. Vanderford’s 

motions, addressing the issues to be resolved at the 

hearing. We discern no unfairness and no prejudice in 

the MSPB procedures.

The Board determined that the Housekeeping Aid positions were appropriately posted and filled by a veteran 

under the MPP procedure, applying 5 U.S.C. § 3310 

relating to veterans preference. See Patterson v. Dept. of 

the Interior, 424 F.3d 1151, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Veterans’ preference rights are defined by the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944 . . . codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 2108, 3309–

3320.”) We discern no violation of law as implemented 

herein.

II

For the employment practices appeal, Mr. Vanderford 

states that the AJ erred in docketing this claim as a 

separate appeal, instead of amending his VEOA appeal to 

include the employment practices claim. The AJ ruled 

that Mr. Vanderford could not amend his VEOA appeal to 

include an employment practices claim, for § 3330a(e)(2) 

of the VEOA provides that “a preference eligible may not 

pursue redress for an alleged [VEOA violation] at the 

same time the preference eligible pursues redress for such 

violation under any other law, rule or regulation.” It was 

Case: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/01/2016
8 VANDERFORD v. DVA

therefore not error for the AJ to separately docket Mr. 

Vanderford’s employment practices claim. We discern no 

prejudice by this procedure.

Although Mr. Vanderford raises several other criticisms, we do not discern violation of statute or regulation. 

The Board’s rulings are affirmed. 

Each party shall bear its costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1018 Document: 28-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/01/2016