Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03219/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03219-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Rodney Haith
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RODNEY HAITH,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2014-3219

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-13-0239-C-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 6, 2015

______________________ 

 RODNEY HAITH, Poughkeepsie, NY, pro se.

 VERONICA NICOLE ONYEMA, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

DEBORAH A. BYNUM. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-3219 Document: 23-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2015
2 HAITH v. DVA

PER CURIAM. 

Rodney Haith appeals from a decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) denying his 

petition for review. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2013, Mr. Haith was removed by the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) from his position

as a File Clerk. Mr. Haith appealed his removal to the 

Board. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties 

entered into a settlement agreement resolving the appeal. 

The agreement provided that the VA was required to, 

inter alia, (1) “amend [Mr. Haith]’s removal . . . to reflect a 

separation for medical disability”; (2) “rescind and expunge [Mr. Haith]’s prior disciplinary record in its entirety”; and (3) “provide [Mr. Haith] with an application for 

disability retirement benefits and . . . assist him with the 

application process.” App. 47. 

The VA subsequently sent two different versions of

Standard Form 50 (“SF-50”) to the Office of Personnel 

Management (“OPM”) (which was determining whether 

Mr. Haith was entitled to disability retirement). The SF50 form is entitled “Notification of Personnel Action.” On 

the first form it submitted to OPM, the VA filled in two 

fields on the form (the “Code” and “Nature of Action” 

fields) to indicate that Mr. Haith had resigned. App. 25. 

In the field labeled “Remarks,” the VA included the 

phrase: “SEPARATED FOR MEDICAL DISABILITY.” Id. 

The VA subsequently sent a second SF-50 to OPM, removing the reference to resignation and indicating that Mr. 

Haith had been terminated. The second form also included in the box labeled “Remarks” the text “Separated for 

medical disability.” App. 26. 

On October 21, 2013, Mr. Haith filed a petition for enforcement of the agreement, arguing that, inter alia, the 

VA had breached the agreement when on the first form it 

Case: 14-3219 Document: 23-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2015
HAITH v. DVA 3

informed OPM that he had resigned and when on the 

second form it indicated his separation was a termination. 

On December 11, 2013, the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) 

issued its initial decision, granting Mr. Haith’s petition in 

part. The AJ found that the VA had partially breached 

the settlement agreement when it originally sent the SF50 to OPM indicating that Mr. Haith had resigned. The 

AJ ordered the VA to inform OPM in writing that Mr. 

Haith’s separation was not the result of a resignation.1

But the AJ held that, with regard to the second SF-50, the 

VA had not breached the agreement when it indicated in 

the boxes on the form that Mr. Haith had been terminated with the notation “Separated for medical disability.” 

Mr. Haith argued that the SF-50 should have shown Mr. 

Haith’s separation was a result of “Retirement-Disability” 

and included the corresponding code. But the AJ noted 

that such an entry would be improper since no such 

retirement had yet occurred. 

Mr. Haith filed a petition for review to the full Board, 

arguing again that the VA breached the agreement when 

it said he was terminated on the second SF-50 form. The 

Board found that the VA had complied with the settlement agreement because the form included “Separated for 

medical disability,” App. 26, in the remarks section, which 

was consistent with the intent of the parties to create a 

presumption that Mr. Haith was entitled to an award of 

disability retirement benefits. See Bruner v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 996 F.2d 290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that 

the government’s termination of an employee for disablement produces a presumption of disability). The Board 

therefore denied review. Mr. Haith appealed the decision 

1 The issue of the VA’s compliance with this order 

was the subject of a separate appeal to the Board and was 

not addressed in the decision presently being reviewed. 

 

Case: 14-3219 Document: 23-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2015
4 HAITH v. DVA

of the full Board. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 7703(b). 

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited in scope. 

We may only set aside an agency’s “action, findings, or 

conclusions” if they are “(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). “A settlement 

agreement is a contract, and its construction is a question 

of law which this court reviews de novo.” Lutz v. U.S. 

Postal Serv., 485 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Lary v. U.S. Postal Serv., 472 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 

2006)). 

Here, Mr. Haith first argues that the settlement 

agreement is unlawful because the VA made misrepresentations during its negotiation. Mr. Haith did not argue at 

the Board that the agreement should be set aside. “Our 

precedent clearly establishes the impropriety of seeking a 

reversal of the board’s decision on the basis of assertions 

never presented to the presiding official or to the board.” 

Sargent v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 229 F.3d 

1088, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

Second, Mr. Haith argues that, because the AJ found 

the VA to have partially breached the contract, the contract is no longer binding on Mr. Haith and his employment should be reinstated. Here, Mr. Haith did not elect 

to terminate the agreement but rather filed a petition for 

enforcement of the settlement agreement. The AJ granted 

this petition in part, ordering the VA to remedy its partial 

breach. Enforcement of the contract was an appropriate 

remedy in this case. 

Third, Mr. Haith appears to argue, as he did at the 

Board, that the VA breached the agreement by stating on 

Case: 14-3219 Document: 23-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2015
HAITH v. DVA 5

the second SF-50 that Mr. Haith was terminated rather 

than separated for medical disability. The Board did not 

err in holding that the VA satisfied the settlement agreement because the VA included a note in the remarks 

section of the SF-50 which stated, “Separated for medical 

disability.” App. 26. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 14-3219 Document: 23-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/06/2015