Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01312/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01312-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Defense
Respondent
Quincy R. Haynes
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

QUINCY R. HAYNES,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1312

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-315H-15-0871-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 4, 2016 

______________________ 

QUINCY R. HAYNES, Virginia Beach, VA, pro se.

STEPHEN FUNG, Office of General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-1312 Document: 26-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/04/2016
2 HAYNES v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Quincy Ray Haynes petitions for review of a decision 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or 

“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 9, 2015, Mr. Haynes began employment as 

a Distribution Process Worker for the Department of 

Defense. Mr. Haynes’ position was a competitive service 

position and was subject to a one-year probationary 

period. On May 20, 2015, the Department of Defense 

terminated Mr. Haynes for alleged poor performance. On 

June 16, 2015, Mr. Haynes appealed his termination to

the MSPB, alleging that the reasons given by the Department of Defense for his termination were false and 

that he was improperly terminated because of his race. 

On June 26, 2015, the administrative judge issued an 

order requiring Mr. Haynes to file evidence and argument 

establishing that his appeal was within the MSPB’s 

jurisdiction. Mr. Haynes did not respond. On July 15, 

2015, the administrative judge issued a second order, 

again requiring Mr. Haynes to file evidence and argument 

establishing that his appeal was within the MSPB’s 

jurisdiction and warning that failure to comply would 

result in dismissal. Again, Mr. Haynes did not respond. 

On July 28, 2015, the administrative judge issued an 

initial decision dismissing Mr. Haynes’ appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. Haynes petitioned for review of the initial decision with the Board on July 28, 2015. Mr. Haynes continued to allege that the reasons given for his termination 

were false and that he was terminated because of his 

race. On November 23, 2015, the Board issued a final 

decision affirming the dismissal of Mr. Haynes’ appeal 

and modifying the initial decision to further explain why 

Case: 16-1312 Document: 26-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/04/2016
HAYNES v. MSPB 3

Mr. Haynes had not established a nonfrivolous allegation 

of MSPB jurisdiction. Haynes v. Dep’t of Defense, DC315H-15-0871-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Final Order, Nov. 23, 2015). 

Mr. Haynes petitions for review by our court. We have 

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

DISCUSSION

Subject matter jurisdiction of the MSPB is a question 

of law, which we review de novo. Vesser v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 29 F.3d 600, 603 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The subject 

matter jurisdiction of the MSPB is “limited to actions 

designated as appealable to the Board ‘under any law, 

rule, or regulation.’” Prewitt v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 

F.3d 885, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7701(a)). 

The petitioner bears the burden of establishing the 

MSPB’s jurisdiction. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i); Fields v. 

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

an employee makes a nonfrivolous allegation of MSPB 

jurisdiction, he is entitled to a hearing at which he must 

prove jurisdiction by preponderant evidence. Garcia v. 

Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 

2006) (en banc). Nonfrivolous allegations require allegations of fact that, if proven, would establish the MSPB’s

jurisdiction. See id. 

In general, Mr. Haynes must satisfy the definition of 

“employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1) to have a statutory

right to appeal his termination to the MSPB. McCormick 

v. Dep’t of Air Force, 307 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

To qualify as an “employee,” Mr. Haynes was required to

show that he was “not serving a probationary or trial” 

period or had completed at least one year of “current 

continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7511(a)(1)(A); see also McCormick, 307 F.3d at 1341. 

The record here reflects that Mr. Haynes served only two 

Case: 16-1312 Document: 26-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/04/2016
4 HAYNES v. MSPB

months of his one-year probationary period and has, at 

most, nine months of total federal service. Mr. Haynes 

does not dispute these facts. Accordingly, Mr. Haynes 

does not satisfy the definition of “employee” under 5 

U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1). A probationary employee in the

competitive service who does not meet the above statutory 

definition of “employee” may still appeal termination

decisions to the MSPB, but only if the employee alleges 

discrimination because of his marital status or partisan 

political affiliation or alleges that the requisite termination procedures were not followed. 5 C.F.R. §§ 

315.805, 315.806; see also Blount v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 

109 M.S.P.R. 174, 177 (2008). Although Mr. Haynes 

alleges that he was discriminated against because of his 

race, he does not allege that he was discriminated against 

because of his marital status or political affiliation, nor 

does he allege that any termination procedures were

violated. Accordingly, Mr. Haynes has not shown that he 

has any right to appeal his termination to the MSPB. 

As the Board properly explained, Mr. Haynes’ arguments regarding the merits of his termination and his 

allegation of race discrimination do not satisfy the jurisdiction requirement. Nor is Mr. Haynes’ prior employment, college education, or veteran status relevant to 

establishing jurisdiction. Because Mr. Haynes failed to 

make a nonfrivolous allegation of MSPB jurisdiction, the 

Board did not err in dismissing his appeal.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 16-1312 Document: 26-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/04/2016