Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03055/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Navy
Respondent
Robert Henderson
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT HENDERSON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3055

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-14-0474-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 4, 2015

______________________ 

ROBERT HENDERSON, Morongo Valley, CA, 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 PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3055 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2015
2 HENDERSON v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Robert Henderson appeals a decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his 

appeal as untimely filed. We conclude that the Board did 

not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Henderson’s 

appeal because Mr. Henderson’s appeal was untimely and 

Mr. Henderson did not provide good cause for the delay. 

Thus, we affirm.

Mr. Henderson was formerly a Training Instructor 

with the United States Marine Corps. On February 7, 

2014, the Department of the Navy (“agency”) removed Mr. 

Henderson from his position. The record indicates that 

the letter informing Mr. Henderson of his dismissal was 

delivered on February 12, 2014, and the letter listed 

February 28, 2014 as the effective date of Mr. Henderson’s removal.

Mr. Henderson filed an appeal with the Board on 

April 14, 2014, forty-five days after the effective date of 

his removal. In response, the administrative judge issued 

an acknowledgment order on April 15, 2014 and two days 

later ordered the parties to respond. Mr. Henderson did 

not respond to the administrative judge’s order. On May 

5, 2014, the agency filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as 

untimely, to which Mr. Henderson also did not reply. 

Eight days later, the administrative judge issued an order

on timeliness providing Mr. Henderson with information 

concerning timeliness and detailing the steps Mr. Henderson had to take to avoid dismissal. Again, the administrative judge received no response from Mr. Henderson, 

either as a formal filing or informal communication. 

Accordingly, the administrative judge dismissed Mr. 

Henderson’s appeal as untimely because appeals must 

generally be filed within thirty days of the effective date 

of the removal unless good cause is shown. On August 18, 

2014, Mr. Henderson petitioned the Board to review the 

initial decision. However, the Board affirmed because Mr. 

Case: 15-3055 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2015
HENDERSON v. MSPB 3

Henderson’s appeal was untimely and his petition for 

review addressed only the merits of his removal and not 

the timeliness of his appeal.

On appeal, Mr. Henderson, who is pro se, states that 

he has “PTSD and other mental problems,” and he attaches documents showing that, at the time his appeal 

was with the Board, he had been given a 90% disability 

rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs. As of 

October 2, 2014, Mr. Henderson was evaluated as 100% 

disabled. Mr. Henderson also implores the court to 

“Please Review facts,” and he explains that he “would like 

to be cleared of [his] dismissal and compensated for back 

pay.”

We review the Board’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). A Merit Systems Protection 

Board appeal challenging a removal “must be filed no 

later than 30 days after the effective date, if any, of the 

action being appealed, or 30 days after the date of the 

appellant’s receipt of the agency’s decision, whichever is 

later.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1). The Board’s regulations 

also provide that “[i]f a party does not submit an appeal 

within the time set by statute, regulation, or order of a 

judge, it will be dismissed as untimely filed unless a good 

reason for the delay is shown.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c). 

Here, Mr. Henderson received the decision removing him 

from his position on February 12, 2014, and the effective 

date of the removal was February 28, 2014. Resp’t’s App.

95–99. Therefore, Mr. Henderson had until March 31, 

2014 to file an appeal with the Board. As he filed his 

actual appeal on April 14, 2014, his appeal was untimely.

The Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that 

Mr. Henderson failed to demonstrate good cause for the 

delay. Mr. Henderson did not respond to either of the 

administrative judge’s two orders—including one warning 

Mr. Henderson that his appeal would be dismissed without a showing of good cause—nor did Mr. Henderson reply 

Case: 15-3055 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2015
4 HENDERSON v. MSPB

to the agency’s motion to dismiss. Moreover, Mr. Henderson’s filing to the Board panel after the administrative 

judge’s decision did not address the timeliness issue. 

Therefore, Mr. Henderson did not provide any reason for 

the delay in filing the appeal, so he failed to prove good 

cause for the delay.

Although on appeal Mr. Henderson mentions his mental and physical disability, he does not explain how it 

contributed to his delay in appealing his removal. In 

addition, Mr. Henderson never raised this issue with the 

Board. Mr. Henderson “cannot raise before this court an 

issue which could have been raised below but which was 

not.” Synan v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 765 F.2d 1099, 1101 

(Fed. Cir. 1985). Had Mr. Henderson explained to the 

administrative judge how his illness impacted his ability 

to timely file his appeal, the administrative judge could 

have weighed whether Mr. Henderson had good cause for 

the delay. However, this court may not consider the 

speculative effect of Mr. Henderson’s illness for the first 

time on appeal. Id. 

In addition, although Mr. Henderson asks this court 

to review the facts underlying his removal, we may only 

review the underlying decision on appeal. The timeliness 

of Mr. Henderson’s appeal was a threshold question to the 

merits of his case and the sole reason for the appeal’s 

dismissal. Accordingly, this appeal presents only the 

timeliness issue, so we may not consider the merits of Mr. 

Henderson’s removal.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

Case: 15-3055 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2015