Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03004/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LaRay J. Benton
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Intervenor

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LARAY J. BENTON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2015-3004

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-13-0508-W-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 12, 2016

______________________ 

LARAY J. BENTON, Mitchellville, MD, pro se.

KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH, Office of the General 

Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, 

DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G.

POLISUK. 

Case: 15-3004 Document: 66-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2016
2 BENTON v. MSPB

JESSICA COLE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mr. LaRay J. Benton appeals the judgment of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board, dismissing his Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal.1 The Board now states, 

in its Respondent’s brief on this appeal, that “the administrative judge and the full Board erred in analyzing Mr. 

Benton’s 11 alleged personnel actions as protected disclosures.” MSPB Br. 11. The Board also states that it erred 

in holding that Mr. Benton had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to disclosures 4 and 10 of the eleven 

actions. The Board nonetheless argues that this court on 

appeal should decide the issues of actions 4 and 10; the 

Board states that we should decide in favor of the position 

as argued in the Board’s Respondent’s brief on this appeal, without opportunity for Mr. Benton to be heard by 

the Board on this new analysis. 

The Board’s proposal is inappropriate not only as a 

matter of due process, but also because a court generally 

may review an agency’s decision only on the grounds 

“upon which the record discloses that its action was 

based.” Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 

318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943); see Ward v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

981 F.2d 521, 527–28 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Chenery doctrine 

 

1 Benton v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, DC-1221-

13-0508-W-1, 2014 WL 5358394 (M.S.P.B. July 29, 2014) 

(Final Decision).

Case: 15-3004 Document: 66-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2016
BENTON v. MSPB 3

prohibits affirming the Board on “a wholly different 

theory” or “entirely different ground from the one it gave 

in its opinion”).

We salute the Board’s action in correcting its errors. 

However, with the concession that for disclosures 4 and 

10 Mr. Benton had exhausted the OSC administrative 

remedy, the Board’s judgment on this Individual Right of 

Action appeal is no longer final. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) 

(2006) (conferring jurisdiction over “an appeal from a final 

order or final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board, pursuant to sections 7703(b)(1) and 7703(d) of 

title 5”); see, e.g. Rockwell v. Dep’t of Transp., F.A.A., 789 

F.2d 908, 913 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Congress expressly limited our appellate review, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), to final 

orders and decisions of the board on the record.”); Johnson 

v. U.S.P.S., 527 Fed. App’x 868, 871 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(remanding when agency conceded that controlling standard was not considered by the Board). 

As the Board’s order is no longer final, we dismiss this 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case is remanded to 

the Board for further proceedings. 

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Mr. Benton. 

Case: 15-3004 Document: 66-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/12/2016