Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01594/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01594-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Air Force
Respondent
Kenneth Ray Kent
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KENNETH RAY KENT,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1594

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-10-0652-C-2.

______________________ 

Decided: September 15, 2016

______________________ 

KENNETH RAY KENT, Denver, CO, pro se.

SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., FRANKLIN E. WHITE,

JR. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1594 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/15/2016
2 KENT v. AIR FORCE

PER CURIAM. 

Kenneth Kent petitions for review of the final decision 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying 

his petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement. 

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2012, Mr. Kent entered into a settlement agreement (“the removal settlement agreement”) 

with the Department of the Air Force (“Air Force”), which 

resolved an appeal from the Air Force’s decision to remove 

Mr. Kent from his position as a Voucher Examiner at 

Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Fair Oaks, Georgia. The 

agreement provided, in relevant part, that the Air Force 

would “rescind [Mr. Kent’s] removal” and “allow [him] to 

resign with a clear record.” J.A. 20. As part of this, the 

Air Force agreed that “[t]he remarks section of the SF-50 

implementing [Mr. Kent’s] resignation will reflect [Mr. 

Kent’s] reason for resigning as follows ‘Working environment was untenable to continued employment.’” J.A. 21. 

The agreement also provided that it “constitutes the 

complete understanding between [Mr. Kent] and the 

Agency. No other promises or agreements will be binding 

unless signed by both parties.” J.A. 22. 

On January 10, 2014, Mr. Kent filed a petition to enforce the removal settlement agreement, alleging that the 

Air Force had failed to comply with its terms because a 

reference to his removal still remained in his electronic 

personnel folder (“eOPF”). Kent v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 

AT-0752-10-0652-C-1. He settled this action on July 7, 

2014. In a second settlement agreement governing this 

enforcement action (“the compliance settlement agreement”), Mr. Kent agreed that he “forever waives the right 

to submit, proffer, or assert any and all other claims he 

may have against the Department of the Air Force, or any 

employee thereof, arising in any manner from or related 

Case: 16-1594 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/15/2016
KENT v. AIR FORCE 3

in any manner to his employment at Dobbins Air Reserve 

Base.” J.A. 26.

On August 13, 2015, Mr. Kent filed a second petition 

to enforce the removal settlement agreement, alleging 

that the Air Force was still not in compliance with its 

terms because it had failed to remove references to two 

previous suspensions from his eOPF. On November 15, 

2015, the Board issued an initial decision denying Mr. 

Kent’s petition because, in its view, the removal settlement agreement did not require the Air Force to remove 

all negative references (such as suspensions) from Mr. 

Kent’s employment record. Instead, it reasoned, the 

removal settlement agreement only required that the Air 

Force rescind Mr. Kent’s removal, allow him to resign, 

and replace his SF-50 form. The Board also noted that 

the compliance settlement agreement was intended to 

resolve all outstanding compliance issues, and Mr. Kent 

had not alleged that the Air Force had failed to conform to 

this agreement. The Board’s initial decision became final 

on December 15, 2015. 

Mr. Kent timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited by statute. 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). 

Interpretation of a settlement agreement (a contract) 

is a question of law which we review de novo. Harris v. 

Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 

1998). The first step in contract interpretation is to 

determine “whether the written understanding is clearly 

Case: 16-1594 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/15/2016
4 KENT v. AIR FORCE

stated and was clearly understood by the parties.” King v. 

Dep’t of the Navy, 130 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If 

it is, we enforce the contract according to its terms. 

Pagan v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 170 F.3d 1368, 1371 

(Fed. Cir. 1999). If any ambiguity exists, we interpret the 

contract to reflect the intent of the parties at the time the 

agreement was made. Id. 

Mr. Kent contends that the Air Force’s failure to remove the references to his two suspensions does not 

comply with the removal settlement agreement because it

required the Air Force to “rescind [Mr. Kent’s] removal” 

and allow him “to resign with a clear record.” Informal Br 

Attach. 2. The paragraph of the settlement agreement 

from which Mr. Kent draws these inferences recites in 

full:

The agency agrees to rescind Appellant’s removal 

from his position as a Voucher Examiner, GS0540-05, Individual Mobilization Augmentee 

(IMA) Travel Pay Office, Dobbins Air Reserve 

Base, Georgia on 5 April 2010, and allow the Appellant to resign with a clear record from his position as a Voucher Examiner, GS-0540-05, 

Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Travel 

Pay Office, Dobbins Air Reserve Base. The Appellant agrees that by signing this Agreement he is 

resigning his employment with the agency effective 5 April 2010. The remarks section of the SF50 implementing the appellant’s resignation will 

reflect the appellant’s reason for resigning as follows “Working environment was untenable to continued employment.” The parties acknowledge 

that the Appellant’s reasons for resigning are his 

personal reasons and do not necessarily reflect the 

Agency’s agreement with such reasons.

Although Mr. Kent has identified the relevant portion 

of the contract, we draw a different conclusion. In our 

Case: 16-1594 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/15/2016
KENT v. AIR FORCE 5

view, this clause read in context makes clear that “resign 

with a clear record” only promises Mr. Kent a clear record 

with regard to his resignation. This phrase is contained 

in a paragraph discussing Mr. Kent’s resignation that 

begins and ends with this topic. The first sentence discusses how Mr. Kent will be allowed to resign. The following sentences describe the mechanics of how the 

resignation will be carried out. The last sentence clarifies

his reasons for resignation. The entirety of the paragraph 

is devoted to the singular event of Mr. Kent’s resignation. 

It does not discuss his employment more generally. As 

such, “clear record” must be confined to the context in 

which it is discussed: the record of Mr. Kent’s resignation. 

It imposes no obligation on the Air Force to expunge other 

portions of Mr. Kent’s employment record.

The removal settlement agreement states that it “constitutes the complete understanding between the Appellant and the Agency,” J.A. 22, and no other portion of the 

agreement mentions any obligation with respect to Mr. 

Kent’s records. Accordingly, the removal settlement 

agreement did not require the Air Force to remove the 

references to Mr. Kent’s earlier suspensions, and the Air 

Force’s failure to do so does not render it non-compliant. 

Cf. Warren v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. SF-531D-92-0239-B-1, 

1996 WL 389315 (M.S.P.B. June 19, 1996) (settlement 

agreement that did not “mention anything about expunging documents relating to the suspension” did not require 

the Navy to do so).

We have carefully considered the remainder of Mr. 

Kent’s arguments and have determined that they lack 

merit.1 We also need not consider whether the compli-

 

1 In addition, Mr. Kent has recently filed a motion 

to supplement the record with certain documents he 

believes are relevant to our decision, including an email 

between Air Force officials regarding the clearing of his 

Case: 16-1594 Document: 21-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016
6 KENT v. AIR FORCE

ance settlement agreement forecloses Mr. Kent’s current 

petition. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s 

decision and deny Mr. Kent’s petition for enforcement. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

 

record, a responsive brief submitted by the Air Force 

during proceedings relating to the removal settlement 

agreement, and excerpts of literature published by the

Board. We grant Mr. Kent’s motion and have also considered these submissions. They do not alter the result. 

Case: 16-1594 Document: 21-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/15/2016