Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01220/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Travis E. Wilkes
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRAVIS E. WILKES,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1220

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0432-11-0466-C-1.

______________________ 

Decided: April 8, 2016

______________________ 

 TRAVIS E. WILKES, Norman, OK, pro se.

 MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENAJMIN C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2016
2 WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM. 

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH. 

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Travis Wilkes appeals the final decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) denying his 

Petition for Enforcement of an MSPB order that reinstated his employment with the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (“the VA”). See Wilkes v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 

DA–0432–11–0466–C–1, 2015 WL 5564671 (M.S.P.B. 

Sept. 22, 2015); see Resp’t’s App. 115–17 (Petition for 

Enforcement). Mr. Wilkes alleges that the VA did not 

fully comply with the MSPB’s order because it failed to 

provide certain benefits due to him under the Thrift 

Savings Plan (“TSP”).1 Pet’r’s Br. 1–2. We affirm the 

MSPB.

BACKGROUND

For almost twenty years, Mr. Wilkes worked as a 

Psychology Technician with the VA. Resp’t’s App. 38. In 

2011, the VA proposed to remove Mr. Wilkes for performance reasons. Id. at 39–40. Before his removal took 

effect, Mr. Wilkes retired. Id. at 69. When he retired, Mr. 

 

1 The TSP “is a retirement savings and investment 

plan for Federal employees and members of the uniformed 

services.” See About the TSP, https://www.tsp.gov/Plan 

Participation/AboutTheTSP/index.html (last visited Mar. 

12, 2016). Employees, and under certain conditions the 

employing Federal agency, may contribute to TSP accounts. See id. A TSP participant may borrow money 

from his or her TSP account while employed with the 

Federal government, an action commonly known as a 

loan. See Loans and Withdrawals, https://www.tsp.gov/

PlanParticipation/LoansAndWithdrawals/loans/index.

html (last visited Mar. 12, 2016).

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2016
WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 3

Wilkes had an outstanding TSP loan, which automatically 

converted to a taxable distribution. Id. at 72.

Despite electing to retire, Mr. Wilkes challenged his 

proposed removal from the VA. Mr. Wilkes ultimately 

prevailed before the MSPB, which ordered the VA to 

cancel his proposed removal and retroactively reinstate 

him with back pay, interest, and benefits, including those 

arising under the TSP. Id. at 62.

The VA took several steps to reinstate Mr. Wilkes and 

restore his benefits. As for Mr. Wilkes’s TSP benefits, the 

VA made matching contributions to his TSP account and 

advised Mr. Wilkes that any questions regarding the 

management of his account should be raised with the 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (“FRTIB”),2

which administers the TSP. Id. at 110.

Mr. Wilkes subsequently filed the Petition for Enforcement with the MSPB and argued that the VA failed 

to fully comply with the MSPB’s order reinstating his 

employment. Mr. Wilkes contended that the VA (1) 

misallocated his TSP makeup contributions3 and associ-

 

2 “The FRTIB is an independent Government agency that is managed by five presidentially appointed board 

members and an Executive Director who are required by 

law to manage the TSP prudently and solely in the interest of the participants and their beneficiaries.” See About 

the TSP, https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/AboutThe

TSP/ index.html (last visited Mar. 12, 2016).

3 “Makeup contributions are employee contributions 

that should have been deducted from a [TSP] participant’s 

basic pay or employer contributions that should have been 

charged to an employing agency on an earlier date, but 

were not deducted or charged and, consequently, are 

being deducted or charged currently.” 5 C.F.R. § 1605.1 

(2015).

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/08/2016
4 WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

ated breakage4 to the “G Fund” instead of the “C Fund,”5

and (2) failed to reimburse his TSP loan that had been 

converted to a taxable withdrawal upon his retirement. 

Id. at 121–22.

In an initial decision, Administrative Judge James 

Kasic of the MSPB denied Mr. Wilkes’s Petition. The 

Administrative Judge concluded that an unrebutted 

affidavit from Kyle Inhofe, Chief of Human Resources at 

the VA’s Oklahoma City Medical Center, explained that 

the VA’s allocations to Mr. Wilkes’s TSP account “were 

distributed to the ‘G Fund’ per an automatic setting that 

[Mr. Wilkes] could change by contacting the [FRTIB], as 

only he could implement such a change.” Id. at 29; see 

also id. at 74–75 (Mr. Inhofe’s Affidavit). The Administrative Judge also found that the VA made the requisite 

matching contributions to Mr. Wilkes’s TSP account. Id.

 

4 “Breakage means the loss incurred or the gain realized on makeup or late contributions” and reflects “the 

difference between the value of the shares of the applicable investment fund(s) that would have been purchased 

had the contribution been made” on the date on which the 

contribution occurred “and the value of the shares of the 

same investment fund(s) on the date the contribution is 

posted to the account.” 5 C.F.R. § 1605.1.

5 A TSP participant may allocate contributions in 

various TSP funds. The FRTIB manages the G Fund, 

which “buys a nonmarketable U.S. Treasury security that 

is guaranteed by the U.S. Government.” See Funds 

Overview, https://www.tsp.gov/InvestmentFunds/FundsOv

erview/index.html (last visited Mar. 12, 2016). A private 

firm manages the C Fund, which “is invested in a stock 

index fund that fully replicates the Standard and Poor’s 

500 . . . Index.” See id. A participant’s allocation preferences will dictate which funds receive the participant’s 

TSP contributions. 5 C.F.R. § 1605.13(a)(3).

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/08/2016
WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 5

at 29. And the Administrative Judge found that the VA 

“did not play[] any role in the reinstatement of [Mr.

Wilkes]’s TSP loan.” Id. Taken together, the Administrative Judge concluded that the VA fully complied with the 

MSPB’s order reinstating Mr. Wilkes’s employment. Id.

Dissatisfied with the Administrative Judge’s initial 

decision, Mr. Wilkes sought review from the MSPB, which 

also denied his Petition. See Wilkes, 2015 WL 5564671, at 

¶ 1. The MSPB found that the VA complied “with its TSP 

payment obligations under the applicable regulations” 

and that “the management of [Mr. Wilkes]’s TSP account 

[(i.e., the allocation of his contributions to particular TSP 

funds)] is a matter between [Mr. Wilkes] and the 

[FRTIB].” Id. at ¶ 13 (citations omitted). The MSPB also 

held that the VA “plays no role in reinstating [Mr. 

Wilkes]’s TSP loan” and otherwise had no obligation to 

inform Mr. Wilkes of his right to reinstate his TSP loan. 

Id. at ¶ 11 (citing Crazy Thunder-Collier v. Dep’t of the 

Interior, 2010 M.S.P.B. 202, at ¶ 13–14 (2010)).

Mr. Wilkes appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2012).

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

In relevant part, we affirm the MSPB’s decision 

unless it is “not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(c)(1) (2012). We review the MSPB’s legal determinations de novo. Welshans v. U.S. Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 

1100, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As the petitioner, Mr. Wilkes 

“bears the burden of establishing error in the [MSPB’s] 

decision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 142 F.3d 

1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/08/2016
6 WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

II. Mr. Wilkes Abandoned His Argument that the VA 

Misallocated Contributions to His TSP Account

In his opening brief, Mr. Wilkes contends that the 

MSPB erred in holding that he could correct errors regarding TSP contributions because “[t]he MSPB used the 

wrong set of facts to make [its] decision.” Pet’r’s Br. 1. 

Mr. Wilkes alleges that the VA misallocated his TSP 

makeup contributions and associated breakage to the G 

Fund, rather than the C Fund. Id. at 2, 6.

After submitting his opening brief, Mr. Wilkes contacted counsel for the Government to provide an update 

on his case. Government counsel asserts that Mr. Wilkes 

informed him that the FRTIB correctly “calculated the 

breakage on [his] TSP makeup contributions based [on] 

investment in the ‘C Fund.’” Resp’t’s App. 68. As a 

result, Government counsel also asserts that Mr. Wilkes 

informed him that “[he] would no longer be pursuing this 

part of [his] appeal” and “would not object if [Government 

counsel] explained this new development in the Government’s informal brief.” Id. Counsel for the Government 

memorialized this exchange in an email sent to Mr. 

Wilkes and invited Mr. Wilkes to “contact [him] if [the] 

description of [the] conversation is not accurate.” Id. 

The record does not indicate that Mr. Wilkes objected 

to the description of the conversation with Government 

counsel, nor have we separately received any such objection from Mr. Wilkes. As a result, we conclude that Mr. 

Wilkes has abandoned this aspect of his appeal.6

 

6 Even had Mr. Wilkes not abandoned this aspect of 

his appeal, the law squarely supports the MSPB’s conclusion that the VA does not manage his TSP contributions. 

See 5 C.F.R. §§ 1605.2(a) (“The TSP will calculate breakage on late contributions, makeup agency contributions, 

and loan payments . . . .”), 1605.22(c)(2) (“For errors 

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 6 Filed: 04/08/2016
WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 7

III. The MSPB Properly Concluded that the VA Has No 

Obligation to Reinstate Mr. Wilkes’s TSP Loan

Mr. Wilkes alleges that the VA did not fully comply 

with the MSPB’s order reinstating his employment because the agency did not reinstate his TSP loan, which 

had been converted to a taxable withdrawal upon his 

retirement. Pet’r’s Br. 2. The governing law does not 

support Mr. Wilkes’s argument.

Mr. Wilkes, not the VA, had an obligation to seek reinstatement of his TSP loan. The VA may correct errors 

in Mr. Wilkes’s TSP account consistent with the FRTIB’s 

regulations. See 5 C.F.R. § 550.805(h) (“Agencies must 

correct errors that affect an employee’s [TSP] account 

consistent with regulations prescribed by the [FRTIB].”). 

The FRTIB’s regulations provide that, if an agency reinstates a wrongfully separated TSP participant, the participant must notify the TSP within ninety days of 

reinstatement to restore any previously withdrawn 

amount to the TSP account. See id. § 1605.13(d). During 

the ninety day period, a participant “may also elect to 

reinstate a loan which was previously declared to be a 

taxable distribution.” § 1605.13(e). However, the regulations do not require the TSP to automatically restore a 

participant’s loan, nor do they require the agency to notify 

 

involving an investment in the wrong fund of which a 

participant or beneficiary has knowledge, he or she may 

file a claim for breakage with the [FRTIB] or TSP record 

keeper . . . [and] [t]he [FRTIB] or TSP record keeper must 

promptly pay breakage for such errors.”), 1506.22(c)(3) (“If 

a participant or beneficiary fails to file a claim for breakage concerning an error involving an investment in the 

wrong fund in a timely manner, the [FRTIB] or TSP 

record keeper may nevertheless, in its sound discretion, 

pay breakage for any such error that is brought to its 

attention.”).

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 7 Filed: 04/08/2016
8 WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

the participant of the right to restore a TSP loan previously treated as a taxable distribution. See id. § 1605.13(d)–

(e); see also Crazy Thunder-Collier, 2010 M.S.P.B. 202, at 

¶ 13 (explaining that § 1605.13 “does not state any agency 

duty to provide notice of th[e] right” to reinstate a TSP 

loan). Thus, because it was incumbent upon Mr. Wilkes 

to contact the FRTIB to have his TSP loan reinstated, the 

MSPB properly concluded that the VA had no obligation 

to reinstate Mr. Wilkes’s TSP loan.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Wilkes’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.7 Accordingly, the 

final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

 

7 After the parties concluded briefing, Mr. Wilkes 

filed a letter, which we treated as a motion, to supplement 

his opening brief. See Pet’r’s Mot. to Supplement Opening 

Br. Mr. Wilkes appended extra-record evidence to the 

Motion. See id. at 3–4. The Government opposed the 

Motion and, alternatively, argued that the extra-record 

evidence does not alter the outcome of the appeal. Gov’t’s 

Resp. to Ct.’s Letter 2–3. As a general proposition, the 

court does not consider evidence that has not first been 

considered by the trial forum (here, the MSPB), though in 

some circumstances exceptions may be made. In this 

case, nothing in Mr. Wilkes’s Motion alters the outcome of 

the appeal.

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 8 Filed: 04/08/2016
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRAVIS E. WILKES,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1220

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0432-11-0466-C-1.

______________________ 

WALLACH, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I concur in the rationale employed and the result 

reached by the majority. However, I write separately 

because I disagree with the majority’s decision to accept 

and consider extra-record evidence in this appeal. 

After the parties concluded briefing, Mr. Wilkes filed 

a letter, which we treated as a motion, to supplement his 

opening brief. See generally Pet’r’s Mot. to Supplement

Opening Br. Mr. Wilkes appended evidence to the Motion 

that was not before the MSPB when it denied his Petition 

for Enforcement—namely, a letter from the FRTIB discussing his (1) TSP makeup contributions and associated 

breakage and (2) TSP loan. See id. at 3–4. The court 

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 9 Filed: 04/08/2016
2 WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERAN AFFAIRS

invited a response from the Government, which opposed 

the Motion and, alternatively, argued that the extrarecord evidence does not alter the outcome of the appeal. 

See Gov’t’s Resp. to Ct.’s Letter 2–3. The majority agrees 

with the Government that the extra-record evidence does 

not alter the outcome of the appeal. Maj. Op. at 8 n.7. 

Precedent required the court to deny Mr. Wilkes’s Motion. Mr. Wilkes did not present the extra-record evidence to the Administrative Judge, and the majority errs 

in accepting it for review. See Hernandez v. Dep’t of Air 

Force, 498 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[N]either we, 

nor the [MSPB], may consider in the first instance evidence not presented to the [Administrative Judge].”); see 

also Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 

(1985) (“[T]he focal point for judicial review should be the 

administrative record already in existence, not some new 

record made initially in the reviewing court.” (quoting 

Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973))). 

The “record rule” has exceptions, but Mr. Wilkes has 

not alleged that the extra-record evidence meets any of 

them. See Home Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 633 

F.3d 1369, 1379 & n.12 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that a 

record may be supplemented when, inter alia, the record 

is inadequate or tainted by fraud); Borlem S.A.-

Empreedimentos Industriais v. United States, 913 F.2d 

933, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that a record may be 

supplemented when the record contains an erroneous fact 

later corrected by the agency that issued the decision 

under review). And to the extent that the majority accepts the extra-record evidence for review and substantively assesses it, the majority impermissibly weighs the 

extra-record evidence against other facts on the record. 

See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 

927, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Finally, Mr. Wilkes’s pro se status does not require us 

to accept and consider the extra-record evidence. AltCase: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 10 Filed: 04/08/2016
WILKES v. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 3

hough we must liberally construe Mr. Wilkes’s pleadings, 

see, e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9–10 (1980), it is 

another thing entirely to suspend the statutory record 

requirements, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (limiting this court’s 

review of MSPB decisions to “the record”); Rockwell v. 

Dep’t of Transp., 789 F.2d 908, 912 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (discussing same).

Although I ultimately agree with the majority that 

the extra-record evidence does not affect the outcome of 

the appeal, I would have denied Mr. Wilkes’s Motion and 

not considered the extra-record evidence in his submission, given the pernicious nature of the lack of predictability which may be engendered, even by this nonprecedential per curiam opinion. 

Case: 16-1220 Document: 14-2 Page: 11 Filed: 04/08/2016