Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02381/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Felicia N. Jones
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FELICIA N. JONES,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2381

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-3443-16-0099-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: December 9, 2016

______________________ 

FELICIA N. JONES, Houston, TX, pro se.

STEPHEN FUNG, Office of the General Counsel, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-2381 Document: 34-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2016
2 JONES v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Felicia N. Jones petitions for review of a final order of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) dismissing 

her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2015, Jones filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for disability compensation and related benefits. The VA denied her claim 

because the military service Jones had alleged did not 

qualify as “active” service under the statutory definition 

of a “veteran.” See 38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d). 

Instead of challenging the VA’s denial of her claim at the

Board of Veterans’ Appeals, however, Jones filed an 

appeal with the MSPB. 

The MSPB administrative judge (“AJ”) dismissed 

Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The AJ first concluded that the VA’s denial of Jones’s claim did not fall 

under any of the appealable agency actions within the 

MSPB’s statutory purview, which include “a removal, a 

suspension of more than 14 days; a reduction in grade; a 

reduction in pay; [or] a furlough of 30 days or less.” J.A. 8 

(citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512, 7513(d)). The AJ then considered 

the applicability of any “exceptions to the [MSPB’s] usual 

jurisdictional limits, such as claims based on the Whistleblower Protection Act, Veterans Employment Opportunities Act[,] and Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act.” J.A. 9. The AJ found that 

Jones had failed to allege a “personnel action” reviewable 

by the MSPB and that she had not alleged that she was 

an agency employee or applicant for employment. See 5 

U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2). The AJ therefore dismissed Jones’s 

appeal.

Jones filed a petition for review with the full MSPB, 

which affirmed the AJ’s decision in a final order denying 

her petition. Jones then filed a petition for review in this 

Case: 16-2381 Document: 34-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2016
JONES v. MSPB 3

court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) 

and 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the MSPB’s jurisdictional determinations 

de novo, but are bound by its factual determinations if 

supported by substantial evidence. See Bolton v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As a 

threshold matter, Jones must assert non-frivolous allegations that, if proven, would establish the MSPB’s jurisdiction. See Johnston v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 

909 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 

437 F.3d 1322, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc). 

To invoke the MSPB’s jurisdiction, a party must allege facts that demonstrate an action appealable by 

statute or regulation to the MSPB. See Garcia, 437 F.3d 

at 1327–28. The MSPB found that Jones had not alleged 

that she was an employee, applicant for employment, or 

other person entitled to appeal to the MSPB, and that the 

VA’s denial of veterans’ benefits was not an appealable 

action under any legal authority granting the MSPB 

jurisdiction. See generally 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3 (summarizing 

legal sources of the Board’s appellate jurisdiction). 

We agree. The exclusive course for challenging the 

VA’s denial of a claim for veterans’ benefits is to file an 

appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, not the 

MSPB. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 511, 7104, 7252. Accordingly, the

MSPB’s final order is 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No Costs.

Case: 16-2381 Document: 34-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2016