Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03105/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John F. Bazan
Petitioner
Department of the Army
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHN F. BAZAN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3105

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-3330-13-4195-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 26, 2016

______________________ 

 JOHN F. BAZAN, Whittier, CA, argued pro se. 

 ERIN MURDOCK-PARK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented 

by SCOTT D. AUSTIN, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3105 Document: 45-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/26/2016
2 BAZAN v. ARMY

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

John F. Bazan appeals from the final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the 

administrative judge’s denial of his Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act (“VEOA”) claim. Bazan v. Dep’t of 

Army, No. SF-3330-13-4195-I-1, 2015 WL 247444 

(M.S.P.B. Jan. 15, 2015). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Bazan is a preference-eligible Contracts Attorney 

with the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (“USACE”). In 2013, Mr. Bazan applied for the 

excepted service position of Deputy District Counsel for 

the USACE Los Angeles District. Of the forty-six eligible 

candidates, USACE interviewed three candidates, including Mr. Bazan. All three interviewed candidates were 

attorneys with the USACE Los Angeles District. The 

hiring panel selected a non-veteran for the position, 

explaining in a memo that the selectee’s “knowledge, 

skills, ability, potential and performance during the 

interview placed her as the superior candidate for selection.” J.A. 38. Mr. Bazan was the “third ranked candidate.” Id.

Mr. Bazan filed a claim with the Board, arguing that 

his veterans’ preference rights were violated. The administrative judge explained that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review Mr. Bazan’s qualifications for the position, 

but nonetheless explained that ample evidence showed

that the agency considered all of the candidates and 

properly documented its selection of a different candidate. 

The administrative judge found that the hiring panel 

considered Mr. Bazan’s status as a veteran “positive,” and

that this was enough to satisfy the “wholly nondirective” 

and “extreme[ly] vague[]” veterans’ preference requirement for excepted positions. J.A. 19. The Board affirmed, 

with one judge dissenting. Mr. Bazan appeals. 

Case: 15-3105 Document: 45-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/26/2016
BAZAN v. ARMY 3

DISCUSSION

We have jurisdiction over Mr. Bazan’s appeal of the 

Board’s final decision. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). We must 

set aside the Board decision if we find it “(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 the Board’s decision about its jurisdiction without deference. Butler v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 331 

F.3d 1368, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Mr. Bazan’s primary complaint in this case is that the 

Army was engaging in prohibited personnel practices 

under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) by manipulating the job description for the purpose of improving the selectee’s prospects 

for employment. He does not dispute, however, that the 

Board lacks jurisdiction to hear such claims. See Schmidt 

v. Dep’t of Interior, 153 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 

(“§ 2302(b) is not an independent source of appellate 

jurisdiction and does not by itself authorize an appeal to 

the Board.”). We see no error in the Board’s decision that 

the administrative judge correctly informed Mr. Bazan 

that the alleged prohibited personnel practices are not 

cognizable claims within a VEOA appeal, and denied 

Mr. Bazan’s motion for discovery relating thereto. 

Mr. Bazan also argues that the administrative judge 

and the Board erred in declining to reevaluate the merits 

of the agency’s determination on his qualifications. He 

points out that under the Department of Defense Instructions (“DoDI”), a “selecting official must select the preference-eligible veteran as opposed to an equally well 

qualified, non-preference-eligible candidate” so long as 

“all relevant considerations for the position are deemed 

equal.” DoDI No. 1442.02 (Sept. 30, 2010), Enclosure 3 

(Procedures for All DoD Civilian Attorney Positions), 

¶ 2(f)(1). He argues that in order to review whether this 

Case: 15-3105 Document: 45-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/26/2016
4 BAZAN v. ARMY

concrete requirement was properly followed by the Army, 

the Board should have determined whether or not he and 

the selectee were “equally well qualified” by reevaluating 

their qualifications for the position. 

We decline to reach the issue of the Board’s jurisdiction to review whether Mr. Bazan was as equally well 

qualified as the selectee. Under any reading of the record, 

Mr. Bazan was not “equally well qualified” such that the 

Army must have selected Mr. Bazan over the selectee 

under DoDI No. 1442.02. The job description required 

specialized experience in environmental law, and the 

agency determined that Mr. Bazan was a weaker candidate than the selectee because the selectee regularly 

reviewed and provided extensive comments upon environmental reports, whereas Mr. Bazan had no significant 

experience with environmental law issues. The undisputed record shows that the selectee was the more qualified 

candidate for the vacant position as described in the 

position description. In fact, Mr. Bazan ranked third of 

the three interviewed candidates.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Bazan’s additional arguments and conclude that they do not warrant a different 

result. Because we find no reversible error in the Board’s 

decision affirming the administrative judge’s denial of 

Mr. Bazan’s VEOA claim, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-3105 Document: 45-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/26/2016