Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02120/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph R. Gallegos
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSEPH R. GALLEGOS,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2120

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-01-0157-C-1.

______________________ 

Decided: December 27, 2016

______________________ 

JOSEPH R. GALLEGOS, Fayetteville, NC, 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 NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and DYK, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/27/2016
2 GALLEGOS v. MSPB

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK, in 

which CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge, joins. 

Dissenting Opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. 

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

Joseph R. Gallegos petitions for review of a final order

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The 

Board dismissed as untimely Gallegos’s petition for enforcement of the settlement agreement that resolved his 

adverse action appeal in Gallegos v. Dep’t of Health & 

Human Services, Docket No. DA-0752-01-0157-I-1 (MSPB 

Mar. 23, 2001). The Board also found that Gallegos did 

not establish good cause for untimely filing. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Gallegos was employed by the Food and Drug Administration (“Agency”) as a Consumer Safety Officer during 

the period from 1980 to 2000. He was removed on November 25, 2000, on the ground that he refused to accept 

a job reassignment that required relocation. On December 14, 2000, Gallegos filed an appeal with the Board to 

challenge his removal by the Agency. In March 2001, 

Gallegos and the Agency entered into a settlement 

agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement provided that 

Gallegos would withdraw his appeal with prejudice, and 

that the Agency would expunge from Gallegos’s Official 

Personnel File (“OPF”) and the Standard Form (“SF-50”) 

any indication that he was removed from his position. 

Instead, a revised SF-50 would indicate “a voluntary 

resignation.” J.A. 120. The Agreement also stated that 

Gallegos “will be provided with a copy of the revised SF50 for inspection, and [Gallegos] will notify the Agency of 

any concerns within 15-days of receipt of the form.” Id. 

The Board approved this settlement and noted that 

“[a]ny petition for enforcement [of the Agreement] must 

be filed within a reasonable period of time after you 

discover the asserted noncompliance.” Gallegos v. Dep’t of 

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/27/2016
GALLEGOS v. MSPB 3

Health and Human Servs., Docket No. DA-0752-01-0157-

I-1 (MSPB Mar. 23, 2001). This notice was consistent 

with 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a), which provides that a petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement must be 

filed “promptly.” 

In October 2014, almost 14 years after the settlement, 

Gallegos alleges that he discovered a breach of the 

Agreement because his revised SF-50 indicated “Resignation ILIA,” which stands for “in lieu of involuntary action.” Gallegos argues that the use of this acronym 

violated the Agreement. He alleged that he had misplaced the settlement agreement, and he was only able to 

confirm the breach by obtaining a copy he received in 

response to a Freedom of Information Act request on April 

14, 2015.

On June 15, 2015, Gallegos filed a petition for enforcement of the settlement agreement with the Board. 

The administrative judge (“AJ”) noted that Gallegos’s 

petition appeared facially untimely. The AJ had ordered 

Gallegos to address the timeliness issue and to provide 

information as to when “he learned that his SF-50 regarding his resignation stated[] ‘Resignation ILIA.’” J.A. 12. 

Gallegos responded that he suspected the Agreement had 

been breached in October 2014 because of the ILIA designation, but that he had been using the SF-50 at issue 

since 2001. The AJ concluded that Gallegos had received 

the revised SF-50 indicating “Resignation ILIA” 14 years 

ago, and determined that the petition was untimely

because Gallegos did not establish good cause for the 

delay. Gallegos v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 

Docket No. DA-0752-01-0157-C-1 (MSPB Sept. 17, 2015).

On review, the Board affirmed the AJ’s finding that 

Gallegos failed to establish that his petition for enforcement was timely filed. Gallegos v. Dep’t of Health & 

Human Servs., Docket No. DA-0752-01-0157-C-1 (MSPB 

Mar. 24, 2016). The Board also noted that “[t]o establish 

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/27/2016
4 GALLEGOS v. MSPB

good cause for the untimely filing of an appeal, a party 

must show that he exercised due diligence . . . . We find 

the appellant’s failure to maintain a copy of the parties’ 

settlement agreement, as well as his apparent failure to 

compare the SF-50 with the settlement agreement at the 

time he received the documents to be less than diligent.” 

J.A. 6.

Gallegos petitions for review. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless 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).

In his petition for review, Gallegos primarily argues 

that the timeliness issue should be resolved in his favor 

because the Agency engaged in fraud. We first address 

the standard for timeliness and then address Gallegos’s 

fraud allegations.

A petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement 

must be filed “promptly.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). We 

have interpreted “promptly” to mean within a “reasonable 

time.” Poett v. MSPB, 360 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). “The ‘reasonable time’ requirement for filing a 

petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement is 

conceptually similar to the defense of laches . . . [where] 

the plaintiff [cannot] delay[] filing suit for an unreasonable and inexcusable length of time from the time he knew 

or reasonably should have known of his claim . . . .” Id. at 

1384. Here, Gallegos stated that he first noticed the 

notation “Resignation ILIA” in October 2014, but also that 

he had been using the SF-50 in question since 2001. 

Gallegos did not dispute that he had also received a copy 

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/27/2016
GALLEGOS v. MSPB 5

of the Agreement when it was executed (though he later 

lost that copy). 

Given that the Agreement specifically provided that 

Gallegos “will notify the Agency of any concerns within 

15-days of receipt of the [revised SF-50] form,” we find no 

error in the Board’s conclusion that Gallegos did not 

exercise due diligence. “[W]hether the regulatory time 

limit for an appeal should be waived based upon a showing of good cause is a matter committed to the Board’s 

discretion and this court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the Board.” Mendoza v. MSPB, 966 F.2d 

650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

Gallegos alleges that good cause exists because the 

Agency engaged in fraud. 

His first theory is that the Agency inappropriately altered his SF-50 after he received a copy at the time of the 

settlement. There are discrepancies between his copy of 

the SF-50 and the one contained in his electronic OPF, 

but the AJ noted these minor typographic differences—

slightly larger fonts, the presence or absence of dashes 

and parentheses, or stray spaces. None of these bears any 

connection to the authenticity of the “Resignation ILIA” 

designation on the SF-50.

Gallegos also alleges that even though the Agreement 

provided for a “voluntary resignation,” the Agency included “Resignation ILIA” on his SF-50 instead, and because 

he was not aware that the ILIA acronym stood for “in lieu 

of involuntary action,” he was fraudulently induced into 

signing the Agreement. According to Gallegos, the Agency officials had a fiduciary duty to explain this acronym to 

him at the time of the Agreement. We disagree.

The Agreement explicitly placed the burden on 

Gallegos to review the SF-50, stating that Gallegos “will 

be provided with a copy of the revised SF-50 for inspection, and [Gallegos] will notify the Agency of any concerns 

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/27/2016
6 GALLEGOS v. MSPB

within 15-days of receipt of the form.” J.A. 120. Furthermore, as the Board noted, Gallegos was represented 

by counsel when executing this settlement. Thus, 

Gallegos could have and should have inquired about the 

acronym at the time of receiving his revised SF-50. We 

find no error in the Board’s conclusion that Gallegos failed 

to establish good cause for his untimely filing.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/27/2016
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSEPH R. GALLEGOS,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2120

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-01-0157-C-1.

______________________ 

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

This case should have been resolved without litigation. The government admits that it violated its Settlement Agreement with Mr. Gallegos, yet refuses to correct 

its violation, on the theory that since Mr. Gallegos did not 

recognize the code by which the violation was achieved, 

the government has no obligation to correct the violation. 

Mr. Gallegos requests that his SF-50 form be corrected to comply with the Agreement. The government refuses even now to make this simple correction, to remove this 

blight on Mr. Gallegos’ record. My colleagues on this 

panel place the fault not on the government for violating 

the Agreement, but on Mr. Gallegos for not discovering 

the violation when it occurred. I respectfully dissent.

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 7 Filed: 12/27/2016
2 GALLEGOS v. MSPB

DISCUSSION

Mr. Gallegos and the government entered into a Settlement Agreement that the “removal action will be 

substituted with a voluntary resignation,” and that a new 

SF-50 form would be prepared to “effectuate the resignation.” Settlement Agreement at 2. A new SF-50 was 

issued, stating “Resignation ILIA.” Mr. Gallegos did not 

decipher the code word “ILIA.” The question before us is 

not how this non-compliance arose; the question is whether it will be corrected. My colleagues hold that Mr. 

Gallegos cannot obtain correction because he did not 

request correction immediately. Thus the government 

argues, and my colleagues affirm, that the violation of the 

Agreement will not be remedied.

The initials ILIA are apparently recognized by personnel officials as “in lieu of involuntary action” — the 

information prohibited by the Settlement Agreement, 

which states: 

The removal action will be substituted with a voluntary resignation. Appellant’s resignation will 

be effective on September 29, 2000, which is the 

date on which the reassignment became effective. 

The Appellant will be provided with a Standard 

Form-52, Request for Personnel Action. The Appellant must indicate the reasons for his resignation on the SF-52 form. In order to continue 

receiving severance pay, appellant must also state 

that “Due to personal considerations, I am unable 

to relocate to San Antonio, Texas.” The SF-52 will 

be dated September 29, 2000. The information in 

the SF-52 form will be used to prepare the Notification of Personnel Action or SF-50 to effectuate 

the resignation. Appellant will be provided with a 

copy of the revised SF-50 for inspection, and will 

notify the Agency of any concerns within 15 days 

of receipt of the form.

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016
GALLEGOS v. MSPB 3

Settlement Agreement at 2. The Board holds that since

Mr. Gallegos was given a copy of the improperly coded SF50 at the time of his separation, he was required to object 

within 15 days or forever remain silent. However, such 

an obligation does not arise when the error is not readily 

recognizable. Technical knowledge of the ILIA acronym 

cannot be imputed, at least in the absence of any reason 

to be suspicious that the government would undermine its 

Agreement, even by clerical error. 

Mr. Gallegos filed this petition about two months after he confirmed the violation. A petition for enforcement 

should be filed within a “reasonable time” following actual 

knowledge of breach of the Agreement. Kasarsky v. 

MSPB, 296 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Mr. 

Gallegos did so. Yet the government refuses to correct the 

SF-50, although the breach is not denied.

In justice, correction is required, and could easily 

have been implemented without this extended litigation. 

It is unconscionable to refuse to correct the form. I respectfully dissent.

Case: 16-2120 Document: 38-2 Page: 9 Filed: 12/27/2016