Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03151/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Dean
Petitioner
Department of the Air Force
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID DEAN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3151

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-3330-14-0020-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015

______________________ 

 DAVID DEAN, Lugoff, SC, pro se.

 DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3151 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
2 DEAN v. AIR FORCE

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. David Dean appeals from a decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) denying his request 

for corrective action pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”). Mr. Dean 

asserts that the Air Force failed to allow him to compete 

for employment in 2013 as a criminal investigator for the 

Air Force Office of Special Investigations. We disagree, 

and affirm the MSPB’s holding.

Civil service positions in the executive branch may be 

classified as one of several types including: “competitive 

service,” “specifically excepted from the competitive 

service,” filled through an appointment requiring Senate 

confirmation, and senior executive service. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2102(a)(1). By default jobs are classified as “competitive 

service.” All Air Force criminal investigator positions are 

listed within Schedule A of the excepted service and thus 

exempt from competitive service job posting and category 

ranking requirements. Resp’t App. 48-49 (67 Fed. Reg. at 

60, 799-800); 44 (78 Fed. Reg. at 4,885).

Through the Air Force’s Schedule A authority, it recruits a small number of candidates through a college 

campus recruitment program called PALACE Acquire

(“PAQ”). Interviews through PAQ are open to the public 

and applicants are selected based upon a weighted score 

that includes veteran’s status. See Resp’t App. 40 (“To 

calculate the weighted score, we applied the following 

formula to the different factors of the score: CIRB (35%) + 

Objective Criteria (15%) + Interview Questions (35%) + 

Observation Criteria (15%) = Weighted Score (100%). To 

determine the final score, we added the Veteran’s preference points to the weighted score.”). In 2013 there were 

three PAQ recruitment events. 

Here, Mr. Dean did not attend any of the three 2013 

PAQ events and asserts it was impossible for him to 

Case: 15-3151 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
DEAN v. AIR FORCE 3

apply. He also argues that he is entitled to a ten point 

veteran’s preference.

This is not the first case Mr. Dean has had before us. 

In 2012, Mr. Dean filed essentially the same appeal to the 

MSPB. See Dean v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 592 Fed. App’x 

923 (2014). In a non-precedential opinion we affirmed the 

MSPB’s decision, opining that Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had properly classified the criminal 

investigator position, including those filled through PAQ, 

as being excepted from competitive service. Id. at 925. 

We further concluded that the Air Force did not need to 

widely announce the PAQ positions to the general public 

as they were excepted from the competitive service. We 

also opined that because the PAQ program took into 

account veteran’s preference, Mr. Dean had not demonstrated a violation of veteran preference laws or rules. Id. 

at 924, 926.

We may set aside the Board’s decision only if it was 

“(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). The burden of establishing 

reversible error in a MSPB decision rests upon the petitioner. Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 142 F.3d 1463, 

1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Here there is only one legally relevant fact: criminal 

investigators were approved as an excepted service position by OPM in 2002, and have been renewed each subsequent year. Mr. Dean does not dispute this fact. 

Furthermore, Mr. Dean does not contest the administrative judge’s conclusion that “OPM is authorized and 

directed to determine finally whether a position is in the 

competitive service.” Resp’t App. 15. The numerous 

statutes and cases that Mr. Dean lists are not relevant 

and do not apply to the issue before us. 

Case: 15-3151 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015
4 DEAN v. AIR FORCE

Therefore, as Mr. Dean has failed to carry his burden, 

we affirm the decision of the MSPB. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3151 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2015