Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01086/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Homeland Security
Respondent
Linda M. Jwanouskos
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LINDA M. JWANOUSKOS,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1086

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-15-0127-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 11, 2016

______________________ 

LINDA M. JWANOUSKOS, Norwell, MA, pro se.

JEFFREY D. KLINGMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BRIAN A.

MIZOGUCHI. 

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1086 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2016
2 JWANOUSKOS v. DHS

PER CURIAM. 

Linda M. Jwanouskos was removed from her position 

in the United States Secret Service in 1999. She appealed 

the removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which 

found that her removal was proper, and this court affirmed the Board’s decision. In the present appeal, Ms. 

Jwanouskos again challenges her removal, and she also

presents a claim for disability retirement involving an 

agency of the District of Columbia. The Board rejected 

Ms. Jwanouskos’s claims. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Jwanouskos was a sergeant in the Uniformed 

Division of the Secret Service. In 1997, the Secret Service 

suspended her security clearance, and in 1999 the Secret 

Service removed her from her position because she did not 

meet the security-clearance requirement for the job. On 

November 5, 1999, Ms. Jwanouskos appealed to the 

Board, challenging her removal. The administrative 

judge determined that Ms. Jwanouskos’s position required a security clearance, she did not have a security 

clearance, and her removal was therefore justified. Several years later, she petitioned for review by the Board, 

which affirmed its initial decision. This court in turn

affirmed the Board’s decision. Jwanouskos v. Dep’t of 

Treasury, 246 F. App’x 677, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

On November 3, 2014, Ms. Jwanouskos filed another 

appeal to the Board, again challenging her 1999 removal. 

She also seemed to ask the Board to resolve a dispute she 

had with the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters’ 

Retirement and Relief Board about whether she could 

receive a disability retirement. The administrative judge 

determined that Ms. Jwanouskos’s removal claim was 

barred by the Board’s previous rejection of that very 

claim. The administrative judge did not address the 

retirement claim but stated that only the removal claim 

Case: 16-1086 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2016
JWANOUSKOS v. DHS 3

was within the Board’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 

administrative judge dismissed the appeal.

The Merits Systems Protection Board affirmed. The 

Board found that Ms. Jwanouskos’s present removal 

claim was barred by collateral estoppel based on the 

previous rejection of her prior challenge to the same 

removal. The Board added that, to the extent that Ms. 

Jwanouskos was newly raising claims of disability discrimination and reprisal for her alleging certain discrimination claims, the Board is “not permitted to adjudicate 

whether an agency’s adverse action, which is premised on 

the suspension or revocation of a security clearance, 

constitutes impermissible discrimination or reprisal.” 

Jwanouskos v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DC-0752-15-

0127-I-1, 2015 WL 5244398, ¶ 6 n.5 (MSPB Sept. 9, 2015). 

The Board also addressed Ms. Jwanouskos’s retirement 

claim. It stated that it lacked jurisdiction over any claim 

relating to a decision by the District of Columbia Police 

and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board. And to 

the extent that Ms. Jwanouskos raised a retirement claim

under laws within the Merit Systems Protection Board’s 

authority, the Board lacked jurisdiction in this case 

because Ms. Jwanouskos did not provide evidence of a 

final decision from the Office of Personnel Management, a 

prerequisite to Board authority.

Ms. Jwanouskos appeals. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with the law; reached in violation of procedures required by law, rule, or regulation; or unsupported 

by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Addison v. 

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1184, 1186 

(Fed. Cir. 1991). We review the Board’s ultimate decision

Case: 16-1086 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/11/2016
4 JWANOUSKOS v. DHS

regarding jurisdiction de novo. Bolton v. MSPB, 154 F.3d 

1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Ms. Jwanouskos challenges the Board’s refusal to reconsider her 1999 removal. But the Board rejected her 

earlier challenge to that removal, and we affirmed that 

rejection. Ms. Jwanouskos now has identified no ground 

for challenging the removal that she did not present in 

the earlier challenge; and, in particular, she has identified 

no new ground that could make any legal difference in the 

upholding of the removal based on her loss of her security 

clearance. For that reason, the Board correctly held here 

that Ms. Jwanouskos’s removal challenge was barred by 

collateral estoppel based on the earlier rejection. See 

Kroeger v. USPS, 865 F.2d 235, 239 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

That conclusion is not altered by Ms. Jwanouskos’s 

reference before the Board to discrimination on the basis 

of disability and retaliation for earlier discrimination 

charges. Ms. Jwanouskos does not present such contentions in this court. In any event, we see no error in the 

Board’s determination that such contentions supply no 

basis for overturning the removal based on loss of a jobrequired security clearance. Under Department of Navy v. 

Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), when a removal is based on 

loss of a security clearance, the Board’s inquiry is very 

narrow, and it does not include inquiring the motivation 

of the Secret Service for suspending her security clearance. See Biggers v. Dep’t of Navy, 745 F.3d 1360, 1362 

(Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Ms. Jwanouskos also challenges the Board’s holding 

that it could not consider her claims regarding disability 

retirement. We see no error in the Board’s ruling.

To the extent that Ms. Jwanouskos’s retirement claim 

arises under the federal retirement laws within the 

Board’s jurisdiction, 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et seq., she has not 

satisfied a prerequisite for the Board to exercise its jurisdiction. The Office of Personnel Management administers 

Case: 16-1086 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/11/2016
JWANOUSKOS v. DHS 5

those laws, see id. §§ 8347(a), 8461(b)–(d); 5 C.F.R. 

§ 831.101, and as relevant here, “an administrative action 

or order” of OPM “affecting the rights or interests of an 

individual” is a precondition to the individual’s bringing a 

claim to the Board. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8347(d)(1), 8461(e)(1); 

5 C.F.R. §§ 831.110, 1201.3(a)(2). There is no evidence 

that OPM issued an action or order on a federal retirement claim by Ms. Jwanouskos. And we are aware of no 

statutory authority for the Board to review a challenge to 

a decision by the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board under D.C. law. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Board 

is affirmed.

No costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1086 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/11/2016