Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01414/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Dereck Adams
Petitioner
Department of Defense
Intervenor
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHARLES DERECK ADAMS,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2016-1414

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-3443-15-0768-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 9, 2016

______________________ 

CHARLES DERECK ADAMS, Herndon, VA, pro se.

KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

Case: 16-1414 Document: 29-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2016
2 ADAMS v. MSPB

CHRISTOPHER L. HARLOW, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented 

by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

DEBORAH A. BYNUM. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Charles D. Adams appeals pro se a final order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his 

claims for lack of jurisdiction. The U.S. Department of 

Defense purportedly transferred Mr. Adams from one 

position to another, and then reassigned him back to his 

former position. We conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s findings that both the alleged transfer and reassignment occurred without reducing Mr. 

Adams’s grade or pay. We further conclude that the 

Board was correct in determining that the reassignment 

did not result in justiciable, non-frivolous claims. We 

affirm the Board’s final order dismissing the case for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Adams worked as an information technology specialist for the Department of Defense. According to the 

evidence submitted by Mr. Adams, the Department of 

Defense transferred Mr. Adams to a position at the Pentagon, effective February 1, 2009. Mr. Adams claims that 

he out-processed from his former position with the Missile 

Defense Agency (“MDA”) in late January, and began 

working at his new position at the Pentagon on February 

2, 2009. Shortly after starting the new position, Mr. 

Adams asserts that he was reassigned back to his former 

position with the MDA. Mr. Adams argues that he suffered from a hostile work environment while at the MDA 

and was the target of discrimination on the basis of age 

Case: 16-1414 Document: 29-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2016
ADAMS v. MSPB 3

and race. Mr. Adams asserts that the agency acted unlawfully by returning him to this environment. While 

working at the MDA—either before the purported transfer to the Pentagon or after returning to the MDA following that transfer—Mr. Adams contends that he was 

denied a pin and certificate for recognition of 30 years of 

government service, could not take use-or-lose leave, was 

denied certain benefits others were receiving, was subjected to internal investigations, was terminated for 

charging his cell phone,1 and was lied to about his goingaway party. 

On May 26, 2015, Mr. Adams filed an appeal with the 

Board. Mr. Adams alleged due process violations, denial 

of the right to a jury trial, discrimination, and various 

other regulatory and statutory violations. Mr. Adams 

sought damages and reinstatement. 

An administrative judge ordered Mr. Adams to submit 

evidence and argument showing that the Board had 

jurisdiction over his claims arising from the reassignment. The order also directed Mr. Adams to submit 

evidence and argument showing that his appeal was 

timely filed, or that there was good cause for the delay. In 

response, Mr. Adams alleged that the reassignment to the 

MDA violated his rights, and that bad faith by the MDA 

nullified the Board’s timeliness and jurisdictional requirements. He also alleged his prior appeals to the 

Board had engendered prejudice against him among the 

Board’s administrative judges. The Department of Defense moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

and timeliness.

 

1 The circumstances of the revocation of Mr. Adams’s security clearance and his subsequent removal were 

considered by this court in Adams v. Dep’t of Def., 371 F. 

App’x 93 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Case: 16-1414 Document: 29-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2016
4 ADAMS v. MSPB

In July 2015, the administrative judge issued an initial decision, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

The administrative judge found that no reduction in grade 

or pay had occurred, and that the claims were frivolous 

because Mr. Adams failed to support his allegations. In 

October 2015, the Board affirmed the administrative 

judge’s initial decision and entered a final order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Adams appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). See also Conforto v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 713 F.3d 1111, 1120-21, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that Fed. Cir. retains jurisdiction over appeals from 

the Board’s final orders dismissing for lack of jurisdiction). 

DISCUSSION

We may hold unlawful and set aside an agency action 

found to be “(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). Whether the Board has 

jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal is a question of law, 

which we review de novo. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We are bound by the 

Board’s factual findings on which a jurisdictional determination is based unless those findings are not supported 

by substantial evidence. Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

An appellant bears the burden of establishing the 

Board’s jurisdiction by preponderant evidence. Fields v. 

Dep’t of Justice, 452 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see 

also 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2). The appellant establishes 

jurisdiction by making “non-frivolous allegations of jurisdiction supported by affidavits or other evidence.” Nichols 

v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 625 F. App’x 987, 991 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (citations omitted).

Case: 16-1414 Document: 29-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2016
ADAMS v. MSPB 5

We conclude that the Board lacked jurisdiction over 

Mr. Adams’s appeal because Mr. Adams failed to present 

a justiciable claim supported by affidavits or other evidence. Mr. Adams did not present—then or now—any 

allegation or evidence that his purported reassignment

resulted in a reduction in grade or pay. Mr. Adams also 

failed to proffer competent evidence or sufficient argument to support his various theories in support of his 

claims. Mr. Adams has the burden to establish jurisdiction through non-frivolous allegations, which he failed to 

carry in this case.2 

The Board’s final order is supported by substantial evidence, not arbitrary or capricious, and in accordance with 

law. We affirm the Board’s final order. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

 No costs.

 

2 Mr. Adams also raises various arguments that 

have been disposed of in other cases. Our 2010 decision 

held that the agency did not err in declining to retain 

Adams or transfer him to another position. Adams v. 

Dep’t of Def., 371 F. App’x at 96. A discrimination claim 

originally brought at the EEOC has been transferred to

district court. Adams v. Dep’t of Def., No. 15-3161 (Fed. 

Cir. Sep. 3, 2015) (order transferring case to E.D. Va.). A 

petition for writ of mandamus directing the Board to rule 

on Adams’s Voluntary Early Retirement Authority request was denied. In re Adams, No. 16-101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 

22, 2015) (order).

Case: 16-1414 Document: 29-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2016