Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01471/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01471-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William J. Brewer
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIAM J. BREWER,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1471

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-15-0216-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 10, 2016

______________________ 

 WILLIAM J. BREWER, Lancaster, CA, pro se.

 SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 16-1471 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2016
2 BREWER v. MSPB

William J. Brewer appeals from the decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal as 

untimely filed. As Mr. Brewer has failed to demonstrate 

that the Board abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or 

capriciously in dismissing his appeal, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Brewer was removed from his position with the 

Army Corps of Engineers effective November 3, 2014. 

The removal notice informed Mr. Brewer of his right to 

appeal his dismissal to the Board within 30 days and his 

right to file an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) 

complaint alleging discrimination within 45 days. On 

December 22, 2014, 49 days after his removal, Mr. Brewer 

filed both an appeal with the Board and an EEO complaint with the agency. 

An administrative judge dismissed the Board appeal 

as untimely filed under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22 because 

Mr. Brewer had not filed it within 30 days, finding 

Mr. Brewer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. 

Mr. Brewer explained that his delay was due to various 

tasks following his removal, including “obtaining retirement options, obtaining health insurance for my family, 

filing unemployment insurance, research[ing] and obtain[ing] documents for the appeal, making the appeal, 

and dealing with the holiday season of activities, office 

closure, etc.” Supplemental Appendix 15. The administrative judge found good cause lacking for the 19-day 

delay, even considering Mr. Brewer’s pro se status, because Mr. Brewer had not requested an extension before 

the filing deadline, could have used an appeal form supplied by the Board, did not present evidence of circumstances beyond his control, and had filed two previous 

appeals with the Board. 

Following a petition for review, the Board agreed with 

the administrative judge’s determination that there was 

not good cause for Mr. Brewer’s delay in filing his appeal 

Case: 16-1471 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2016
BREWER v. MSPB 3

to the Board under § 1201.22. The Board considered 

Mr. Brewer’s explanation that he was unable to timely file 

his appeal because he experienced stress due to his sudden job loss, because he had to travel to Egypt to look 

after his children, and because he did not have legal 

counsel to assist him, but found that these reasons did not 

demonstrate due diligence or ordinary prudence to justify 

the late filing. But the Board remanded the appeal because the record lacked evidence regarding the scope and 

status of Mr. Brewer’s EEO complaint. The Board explained that to the extent the EEO complaint encompassed the agency’s removal action (i.e., a “mixed case” 

complaint under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302), the timeliness 

standards under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154 may apply, but if the 

EEO complaint was also untimely filed, the time limits 

under § 1201.22 would apply instead. 

On remand, the administrative judge ordered the parties to submit evidence regarding the EEO complaint. In 

view of evidence submitted by the agency, the administrative judge found that on October 1, 2015, the Office of 

Federal Operations had affirmed the agency’s final dismissal of Mr. Brewer’s EEO complaint as untimely. The 

administrative judge thus dismissed Mr. Brewer’s appeal 

as untimely under both § 1201.154 and § 1201.22. 

Mr. Brewer did not petition for review, and the decision of 

the administrative judge became the final decision of the 

Board. 

Mr. Brewer appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

We must affirm a final decision of the Board unless it 

is (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). “[W]hether the regulatory time limit 

Case: 16-1471 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2016
4 BREWER v. MSPB

for an appeal should be waived based upon a showing of 

good cause is a matter committed to the Board’s discretion 

and this court will not substitute its own judgment for 

that of the Board.” Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 

F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

The appellant has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his appeal was timely filed. 

5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B). Because Mr. Brewer did 

not timely file a mixed case complaint with the agency 

under § 1614.302 and § 1201.154, his appeal to the Board 

must satisfy the timeliness requirements in § 1201.22, 

which sets a 30-day deadline for an appeal absent good

cause. Although it is undisputed that Mr. Brewer did not 

file his appeal to the Board within the 30 days required by 

§ 1201.22, the Board may waive the timeliness requirement for good cause. “To establish good cause for a filing 

delay, an appellant must show that the delay was excusable under the circumstances and that the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to meet the filing 

deadline.” Zamot v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 332 F.3d 1374, 

1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In making this determination, we 

have approved use of the factors the Board set forth in 

Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 

(1980). See Walls v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 29 F.3d 1578,

1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Specifically, in evaluating good 

cause, the Board considers:

the length of the delay; whether appellant was notified of the time limit or was otherwise aware of 

it; the existence of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant which affected his ability to 

comply with the time limits; the degree to which 

negligence by the appellant has been shown to be 

present or absent; circumstances which show that 

any neglect involved is excusable neglect; a showing of unavoidable casualty or misfortune; and the 

extent and nature of the prejudice to the agency 

which would result from waiver of the time limit.

Case: 16-1471 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2016
BREWER v. MSPB 5

Id. (quoting Alonzo, 4 M.S.P.R. at 184).

Here, after Mr. Brewer was afforded an opportunity to 

explain the reasons for his delay in filing his appeal, the 

administrative judge and the Board properly considered 

the relevant factors in determining that Mr. Brewer had 

not demonstrated good cause for his delay. Specifically, 

both the administrative judge and the Board properly 

found that Mr. Brewer received notice of the filing deadline, had familiarity with the Board’s appeal procedures 

through his involvement in two prior appeals, failed to 

request an extension prior to the filing deadline, and did 

not present evidence of circumstances beyond his control. 

The reasoning provided by the Board does not reflect an 

abuse of discretion or arbitrary or capricious decisionmaking. As “this court will not substitute its own judgment

for that of the Board,” Mendoza, 996 F.2d at 653, we 

affirm the dismissal of Mr. Brewer’s appeal as untimely 

filed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS. 

No Costs.

Case: 16-1471 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/10/2016