Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03170/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richie Leon Hall
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICHIE LEON HALL,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2014-3170

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-3443-14-0725-I-1.

______________________

Decided: February 5, 2015

______________________

RICHIE L. HALL, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK.

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 14-3170 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2015
2 HALL v. MSPB

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Richie Leon Hall appeals the June 26, 

2014, decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(“Board”) dismissing his petition for review for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Hall v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC3443-14-0725-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 26, 2014) (Resp’t’s App. 

1–9) (“Initial Decision”). For the reasons set forth below, 

this court affirms.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Hall, a civilian, was first employed as a Traffic 

Management Specialist, a temporary position, with the 

United States Army Transportation Brigade of the Department of Defense (“Agency”) at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. 

Subsequently, Mr. Hall was voluntarily reassigned to a 

permanent position at the same camp as a Transportation 

Planning Specialist. As part of his reassignment, Mr. 

Hall requested a Living Quarter Allowance (“LQA”) and 

other related benefits, which the Agency denied, finding 

he was ineligible for a LQA, and therefore not entitled to 

the other benefits.

Mr. Hall appealed the Agency’s decision denying benefits to the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”). On 

September 26, 2013, the OPM upheld the denial of benefits. Mr. Hall appealed to the Board on May 18, 2014. 

“Because it appeared that the Board might not have 

jurisdiction over the appeal,” in its order acknowledging 

Mr. Hall’s appeal, it gave him an opportunity to submit 

evidence establishing jurisdiction. Initial Decision, at 3. 

It also explained the “nature of the jurisdictional issue” 

and his burden of proof. Id. After receiving Mr. Hall’s 

reply, the Board dismissed his petition for review for lack 

of jurisdiction on June 26, 2014. The Board’s Initial 

Decision became final on July 31, 2014. Mr. Hall appeals. 

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9) (2012).

Case: 14-3170 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2015
HALL v. MSPB 3

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review 

This court’s “scope of . . . review of [B]oard decisions is 

limited to whether they are (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.” Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) 

(1988)). The issue of Board jurisdiction is a question of 

law this court reviews de novo. Johnston v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This court is 

bound by the Board’s jurisdictional factual findings “unless those findings are not supported by substantial 

evidence.” Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

II. Legal Framework

Mr. Hall bears the burden of demonstrating Board jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. Fields v. Dep’t 

of Justice, 452 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(a)(2)(i) (2013). The Board’s jurisdiction is 

“strictly defined and confined by statute and regulation” 

to appeals of decisions involving “adverse actions.” Bolton, 154 F.3d at 1316. Such actions are (1) removals; (2) 

suspensions for more than fourteen days; (3) reductions in 

grade; (4) reductions in pay; and (5) furloughs of thirty 

days or less. 5 U.S.C. § 7512(1)–(5) (2012). “[A]llegations 

of a reassignment without change of grade or pay do not 

provide a basis for [Board] jurisdiction.” Carley v. Dep’t of 

the Army, 413 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting

Manning v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 742 F.2d 1424, 1427 

(Fed. Cir. 1984)).

Case: 14-3170 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2015
4 HALL v. MSPB

III. The Board Properly Held It Lacked Jurisdiction 

Because Mr. Hall Did Not Satisfy His Burden to Establish 

Board Jurisdiction 

The Board correctly held the OPM’s refusal to grant a

LQA and related benefits after Mr. Hall’s reassignment 

was not an “adverse action” for purposes of establishing 

its jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7512(1)–(5).1 As the 

Board found, this case does not involve a removal, a 

suspension for more than fourteen days, a reduction in 

grade, or a furlough of thirty days or less. Thus, the issue 

is whether the denial of Mr. Hall’s request for LQA and 

related benefits amounts to a reduction in pay under the 

jurisdictional statute. The Board properly found it did not.

Mr. Hall was voluntarily reassigned from a temporary 

to a permanent position, and his appeal is based on the

OPM’s denial of his request for benefits he believes should 

have accompanied the new position. Thus, as the Board 

found, “it appears that [Mr. Hall] accepted a promotion, 

but the agency benefits are not what he anticipated.” 

Initial Decision, at 4. There is no evidence Mr. Hall 

received the requested benefits in his previous position, 

and a denial of a request for benefits upon accepting a 

new position does not amount to a reduction in pay. 

Thus, as the Board properly concluded, “[t]he determina-

 

1 Although the Board did not address it, to the 

extent Mr. Hall argued his claim was for “‘a breach of 

contract of government,’” Initial Decision, at 3 (citation 

omitted), it is possible that jurisdiction would be proper 

before the United States Court of Federal Claims. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1491; see also Ransom v. United States, 900 F.2d 

242, 244 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“To maintain a cause of action

pursuant to the Tucker Act that is based on a contract, 

the contract must be between the plaintiff and the government and entitle the plaintiff to money damages.”).

Case: 14-3170 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2015
HALL v. MSPB 5

tion of . . . benefits . . . fails to meet the definition of an 

adverse action for purposes of Board jurisdiction.” Id.

A reassignment without change in pay does not provide a basis for Board jurisdiction. Manning, 742 F.2d at 

1427. Here, the reassignment did not result in the reduction of pay because “pay” “means the rate of basic pay 

fixed by law or administrative action for the position held 

by an employee.” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(4). In Mr. Hall’s 

case, a LQA was not “fixed by law or administrative 

action”; it was discretionary. See U.S. Dep’t. of State, 

Dep’t of State Standardizing Regulations (DSSR) 

§§ 031.11, 031.112 (2009) (stating quarters allowances 

“may” be granted to employees); see also Roberts v. United 

States, 104 Fed. Cl. 598, 602 (2012), aff’d, 745 F.3d 1158 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[O]verseas allowances and differentials 

are not automatic salary supplements, nor are they 

entitlements. . . . Individuals shall not automatically be 

granted these benefits simply because they meet eligibility requirements.”) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Mr. Hall has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the Board has jurisdiction over this case. See Fields, 

452 F.3d at 1302. Indeed, as the Board concluded, Mr. 

Hall did not cite any law or provide evidence “assert[ing] 

that he was subjected to an action over which the Board 

has jurisdiction.” Initial Decision, at 5. In the absence of 

such evidence, the Board properly held it lacked jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the 

Board is

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-3170 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/05/2015