UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

JOHN D. PATRIE,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

Agency,

DOCKET NUMBER

PH-4324-18-0222-R-1

DATE: January 25, 2024

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Patrick H. Boulay, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

Courtney Wheeler, Esquire, Washington. D.C., for the agency.

Wendy Provoda, Esquire, Windsor, Connecticut, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

The Board issued a final decision in this appeal on August 23, 2023. Patrie

v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. PH-4324-18-0222-I-2, Final Order

(Aug. 23, 2023). For the reasons set forth below, we REOPEN the appeal on the

Board’s own motion under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(e)(1)(B) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118,

1

 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
VACATE the Board’s Final Order in Patrie v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket

No. PH-4324-18-0222-I-2, Final Order (Aug. 23, 2023), and DISMISS the

underlying appeal as settled. 

On August 23, 2023, the Board issued a final decision, which denied the

agency’s petition for review and affirmed the initial decision granting the

appellant’s request for corrective action under the Uniformed Services

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (codified as amended at

38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335). Patrie v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. PH4324-18-0222-I-2, Final Order (Aug. 23, 2023). Thereafter, the parties reached a

settlement agreement and filed a joint motion to reopen the record to enter the

settlement agreement into the record for enforcement purposes. Patrie v. U.S.

Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. PH-4324-18-0222-R-1, Reopening Appeal File

(RAF), Tab 1. The parties attached Exhibit A to this joint motion, which is an

executed settlement agreement bearing the I-2 docket number. Id. at 3-13. The

agreement was signed by the appellant and an attorney from the Office of Special

Counsel on October 19, 2023, and by the agency on October 23, 2023. Id. at 13.

The agreement provides, among other things, that its “execution [by the

appellant] . . . shall serve as [his] full and complete settlement and resolution with

prejudice of the matter of the subject appeal and all related claims.” Id. at 10.

Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the

parties have entered into a settlement agreement, whether they understand its

terms, and whether they intend to have the agreement entered into the record for

enforcement by the Board. See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146,

149 (1988). We find here that the parties have entered into a settlement

agreement, they understand its terms, and they want the Board to enforce those

terms. RAF, Tab 1 at 12.

In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for

enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful

on its face and whether the parties freely entered into it. See Delorme

2
v. Department of the Interior, 124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 10-11 (2017). We further

find that the agreement is lawful on its face and freely entered into, and we accept

the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement purposes. Accordingly,

we find it appropriate under the circumstances to vacate the Board’s decision,

dated August 23, 2023, and dismiss as settled the underlying appeal with

prejudice to refiling (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal). 

This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this

appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal regulations, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.113). 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR 

ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS

If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the agreement,

either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by promptly

filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial decision on

this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the petitioning

party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not been fully

carried out, and should include the dates and results of any communications

between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS2

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By

statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such

review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).

Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most

appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their

2

 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

3
jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time

limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you

should contact that forum for more information. 

(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). 

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

4
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of

discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination

claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems

Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative

receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be

entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any

requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding

all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

5
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision. 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the

address of the EEOC is: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection

Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section

2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),

(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of

competent jurisdiction.3 The court of appeals must receive your petition for

3

 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,

132 Stat. 1510. 

6
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.

§ 7703(b)(1)(B). 

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

7
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

 

 

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

8