Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01138/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01138-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rhonda M. Harrelle
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Peace Corps
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RHONDA M. HARRELLE,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1138

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-315H-15-0425-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 10, 2016

______________________ 

 RHONDA M. HARRELLE, Arlington, VA, 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 LOURIE, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 16-1138 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2016
2 HARRELLE v. MSPB

Rhonda M. Harrelle (“Harrelle”) seeks review of the

final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(“Board”) dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

See Harrelle v. Peace Corps, No. DC-315H-15-0425-I-1, 

2015 WL 5315793 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 14, 2015) (“Final Order”). Because the Board correctly concluded that it 

lacked jurisdiction over Harrelle’s appeal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In October 2014, Harrelle was appointed to an excepted-service position as a Medical Pre-Service Assistant in

the Peace Corps (“Agency”) under the authority of section 

7(a) of the Peace Corps Act of 1961. Final Order, ¶ 2. In 

its welcome letter, the Agency stated that she was appointed for a 60-month term subject to a 12-month trial 

period. Id. In February 2015, the Agency terminated 

Harrelle for “continued performance concerns.” Resp’t’s 

App. 86. She appealed her termination to the Board.

The administrative judge (“AJ”) issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding 

that Harrelle was “a Foreign Service employee in the 

excepted service,” and thus had no Board appeal rights. 

Harrelle v. Peace Corps, No. DC-315H-15-0425-I-1, 2015 

WL 1785871 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 16, 2015). Harrelle petitioned 

for review by the full Board. The Board denied her petition and affirmed the AJ’s initial decision, except as 

modified by its finding that Harrelle was “an exceptedservice appointee who had not completed 2 years of current continuous service.” Final Order, ¶ 1; id. ¶ 8 n.6.

The Board agreed with the AJ that, because Harrelle 

was a member of the Foreign Service, she was specifically 

excluded from the definition of “employee” for purposes of 

Board appeal rights pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(B) and 

§ 7511(b)(6). Id. ¶ 7. The Board further concluded that it 

lacked jurisdiction for the additional reason that Harrelle, 

a nonpreference-eligible, excepted-service appointee, did

not meet the definition of “employee” under 5 U.S.C. 

Case: 16-1138 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2016
HARRELLE v. MSPB 3

§ 7511(a)(1)(C). Id. ¶ 8. Lastly, absent an otherwise

appealable action, the Board found no basis to exercise 

jurisdiction over Harrelle’s remaining claims, including 

her assertion of problems with her official personnel file, 

leave accrual rate, and thrift savings plan. Id. ¶ 9.

Harrelle timely appealed from the Board’s final order 

to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find it 

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). We review a determination of 

the Board’s jurisdiction de novo as a question of law, and

review underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. Parrott v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 519 F.3d 1328, 

1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Harrelle argues that she was wrongfully terminated. 

She alleges that the Agency violated its termination 

policy by not informing the Foreign Service Grievance 

Board of her termination. She also alleges that the Agency improperly removed money from her thrift savings 

plan. Finally, she seeks to verify her annual leave accrual 

rate and requests a copy of her official personnel file. The 

government responds that the Board properly considered 

all relevant facts and correctly concluded that it lacked 

jurisdiction over Harrelle’s appeal.

We agree with the government that the Board lacked 

jurisdiction over Harrelle’s appeal. The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary, but rather is “limited to actions made 

appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation.” Lazaro v. 

Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316, 1318 (Fed. Cir.

2012) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)). As the appellant before 

Case: 16-1138 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/10/2016
4 HARRELLE v. MSPB

the Board, Harrelle bore the burden of establishing the 

Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 

C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i). But she failed to satisfy that 

burden.

The record shows, and Harrelle does not dispute, that 

she was appointed to an excepted-service position in the 

Peace Corps under the authority of the Peace Corps Act of 

1961. According to the Peace Corps Manual, “all Peace 

Corps employees other than the Director and Deputy 

Director are appointed members of the Foreign Service 

using authority contained in section 7(a)(2) of the Peace 

Corps Act and section 303 of the Foreign Service Act of 

1980.” Peace Corps Manual, MS 601, § 2.2, available at

http://www.peacecorps.gov/about/policies/docs/manual/ 

(last visited March 7, 2016); see also 22 U.S.C. § 2506. 

The Board thus correctly found that Harrelle was a member of the Foreign Service.

5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(B) and § 7511(b)(6) specifically exclude a member of the Foreign Service from the definition 

of “employee” who may appeal certain adverse actions, 

including removal, to the Board. The Board therefore did 

not err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over 

Harrelle’s appeal.

We have considered Harrelle’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

we affirm the Board’s decision dismissing Harrelle’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1138 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/10/2016