UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

STACY MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-0752-17-0111-I-1

DATE: February 1, 2023

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Bradley R. Marshall, Charleston, South Carolina, for the appellant.

Carla Eldred, APO, APO/FPO Europe, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which 

dismissed her alleged involuntary resignation appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

without holding a hearing. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in 

the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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).
2

material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute 

or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the 

administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial 

decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of 

discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and 

material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due 

diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully 

considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not 

established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. 

Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,

which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 

BACKGROUND

¶2 Until her resignation, effective August 15, 2016, the appellant was 

employed by the agency as a Teacher. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 14, 16. 

In October 2016, the appellant filed this appeal, alleging that she was coerced 

into resigning because of a hostile work environment and discrimination based on 

her age and sex, as well as reprisal related to her prior equal employment 

opportunity (EEO) activity. IAF, Tab 1 at 5-6. 

¶3 The administrative judge informed the appellant how to establish

jurisdiction over her involuntary resignation claim, and ordered her to file 

evidence and argument on that issue. IAF, Tab 3 at 2-4. The appellant did not 

respond. In her initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the 

administrative judge found that the appellant failed to allege any specific facts to 

support her claim of involuntary resignation, and thus failed to nonfrivolously 

allege jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 9, Initial Decision (ID). Because the administrative 

judge found that the appellant failed to raise nonfrivolous allegations that her 
3

resignation was involuntary, the administrative judge did not hold the appellant’s 

requested hearing. IAF, Tab 1 at 7; ID at 1-2. 

¶4 The appellant has filed a petition for review, arguing that she was forced to 

resign due to intolerable working conditions, and, for the first time on review, 

alleging specific facts in support of her claim. Petition for Review (PFR) File, 

Tab 3 at 5-23. She additionally includes for the first time on review the 

transcripts of several depositions from October 2014 that were taken in 

connection with an EEO complaint that she had filed, her own December 2014 

declaration in support of her EEO complaint, and a handwritten summary of 

another witness’s deposition—seemingly from November 2014. Id. at 28-116. 

The agency has not filed a response.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

The administrative judge properly found that the appellant failed to 

nonfrivolously allege her resignation was the result of intolerable working 

conditions based on her nonspecific factual allegations.

¶5 An appellant is entitled to a hearing on the issue of Board jurisdiction over 

an appeal of an alleged involuntary resignation only if she makes a nonfrivolous 

allegation casting doubt on the presumption of voluntariness. Jones v. 

Department of the Interior, 76 M.S.P.R. 43, 45 (1997). Nonfrivolous allegations 

of Board jurisdiction are allegations of fact which, if proven, could establish a 

prima facie case that the Board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue. Searcy v. 

Department of Commerce, 114 M.S.P.R. 281, ¶ 10 (2010).

¶6 An employee-initiated action, such as a resignation, is presumed to be 

voluntary, and thus outside the Board’s jurisdiction, unless the employee presents 

sufficient evidence to establish that the action was obtained through duress or 

coercion or shows that a reasonable person would have been misled by the 

agency. Id., ¶ 12 (citing Staats v. U.S. Postal Service, 99 F.3d 1120, 1123-24 

(Fed. Cir. 1996)). The appellant here has not alleged that her resignation resulted 

from agency misinformation. Rather, she has argued both below and on review 
4

that she resigned as a result of a hostile work environment created by her 

Principal and Vice Principal. IAF, Tab 1 at 5-6; PFR File, Tab 3 at 13-26. 

In determining whether intolerable working conditions have rendered an action 

involuntary, the issue is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, 

the employee’s working conditions were made so difficult that a reasonable 

person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Brown v. 

U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 10, aff’d, 469 F. App’x 852 (Fed. Cir. 

2011); Searcy, 114 M.S.P.R. 281, ¶ 12. In making this determination, the Board 

will consider allegations of discrimination and reprisal only insofar as those 

allegations relate to the issue of voluntariness and not whether they would 

establish discrimination or reprisal as an affirmative defense. 2 

Brown, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 10. 

¶7 The administrative judge found that, although the appellant indicated that 

she filed an EEO complaint and used various adjectives to describe the purported 

improper acts by the agency, she failed to allege any specific facts to support her 

claim.3 ID at 5. In doing so, the administrative judge properly considered the 

appellant’s allegations of discrimination only insofar as they related to the issue 

of voluntariness. Id. 

¶8 On review, the appellant appears to restate many of her generalized 

allegations. PFR File, Tab 3 at 5-26. She also expands on some of these 

allegations. For example, she asserts that she was “isolated, aggressively 

 

2

The appellant argues that she established her retaliation and a hostile work 

environment claims under Title VII standards. PFR File, Tab 3 at 16-26. Because these 

legal standards are not applicable to the instant appeal, her arguments that she met them 

are not persuasive. See Brown, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 10. 

3

The administrative judge observed that although the appellant indicated in her initial 

appeal that she had attached documents which “set forth in detail” the “conduct giving 

rise to this appeal,” no such documents were attached to her pleading. ID at 5 & n.3 

(quoting IAF, Tab 1 at 6). Similarly, despite the appellant’s assertion on review that 

she attached a “Pre-complaint Intake Form which sets forth a summary of events which 

gives rise to this complaint,” PFR File, Tab 3 at 6-7, no such form was attached to her 

petition for review.
5

questioned, yelled at, mocked, mimicked, second-guessed, micromanaged, 

castigated and falsely portrayed” by her Principal and Vice Principal. Id. at 8, 10, 

26. She also characterizes these managers as “harshly judg[ing] her” grading 

practices and claims that they “move[d] the poor performing students into her 

classes in mass.” Id. at 11-12. She alleges that in the last 7 months of her 

employment she was “subjected to a heightened level of hostility.” Id. at 7-8.

Additionally, she asserts that the Principal attempted to intimidate her to prevent 

her from testifying at a deposition, but fails to provide any clarifying details 

about this alleged intimidation—such as whether it occurred in-person, what 

statements he made or behavior he exhibited, or when it happened. Id. at 22. 

These allegations are still vague, conclusory, or otherwise unsupported, and 

therefore do not satisfy the Board’s nonfrivolous pleading standard. See Green v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 59, ¶¶ 10-11 (2009) (finding that 

an appellant’s allegations that coworkers “spread[ ] rumors” about him because

they were “trying to get back at [him] for some reason” were vague and general, 

thus falling short of nonfrivolous allegations of intolerable working conditions 

that could establish jurisdiction over his allegedly forced resignation); Dodson v. 

U.S. Postal Service, 67 M.S.P.R. 84, 87 (1995) (finding that the appellant failed 

to set forth specific assertions of fact, which, if proven, would support her claim 

that her retirement resulted from “duress” and “misinformation”); Collins v. 

Defense Logistics Agency, 55 M.S.P.R. 185, 189-90 (1992) (finding, in the 

context of an involuntary resignation appeal in which the appellant argued that 

she was forced to resign because of discrimination and retaliation, that her failure 

to make allegations specifying the particular acts of harassment, discrimination, 

or retaliation directed toward her warranted dismissing the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction without affording her a jurisdictional hearing), modified on other 

grounds by Ferdon v. U.S. Postal Service, 60 M.S.P.R. 325, 329-30 (1994);

5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s)(1) (providing that to be considered nonfrivolous, an 

allegation generally needs to be, amongst other things, more than conclusory). 
6

Accordingly, these allegations do not warrant a different outcome from that of the 

initial decision. 

The appellant’s factual allegations and legal arguments raised for the first time on 

review fall short of nonfrivolous allegations that her resignation was the result of 

intolerable working conditions.

¶9 The appellant has provided some more specific allegations of fact on 

review. PFR File, Tab 3 at 5-10, 102-12. She also alleges for the first time that 

the agency failed to accommodate her disability, harassed her based on that 

disability, and retaliated against her for activity other than her own EEO 

complaints. Id. at 5-8, 18. The question of whether the appellant resigned 

involuntarily implicates the Board’s jurisdiction, see Quiet v. Department of 

Transportation, 104 M.S.P.R. 292, ¶ 6 (2006), an issue that is always before the 

Board, Poole v. Department of the Army, 117 M.S.P.R. 516, ¶ 9 (2012). 

Accordingly, we have considered the appellant’s new argument and allegations on 

review. See Schoenig v. Department of Justice, 120 M.S.P.R. 318, ¶ 7 (2013)

(recognizing that the Board may consider evidence submitted for the first time on 

petition for review if it implicates the Board’s jurisdiction); Lovoy v. Department 

of Health & Human Services, 94 M.S.P.R. 571, ¶ 30 (2003) (considering an 

appellant’s jurisdictional arguments raised for the first time on review). 

Nevertheless, as indicated below, we find that she still fails to raise a 

nonfrivolous allegation that her resignation was involuntary.

The appellant’s new legal arguments do not provide a basis to disturb the 

initial decision.

¶10 An agency’s denial of a reasonable accommodation to an eligible employee 

is a factor to be considered in determining whether the agency coerced the 

appellant’s resignation. Brown, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 16. Here, however, the 

appellant fails to indicate what accommodations she requested, when she made 

her requests, or that the requested accommodations would have permitted her to 
7

continue working.4 PFR File, Tab 3 at 5-7. Accordingly, the appellant’s 

assertion fails to meet the nonfrivolous pleading standard. Collins, 55 M.S.P.R. 

at 189-90; see Hosozawa v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 110, 

¶ 7 (2010) (finding that an appellant nonfrivolously alleged her resignation was 

involuntary when it followed the agency’s denial of her request to telecommute, 

which her doctor indicated would have permitted her to continue working).

¶11 The appellant also alleges for the first time on review that the agency 

harassed her because of her disability and retaliated against her because of her 

role as a union representative and for assisting in the EEO complaints of other 

employees. PFR File, Tab 3 at 6. She raises additional bases of retaliation, 

including for reporting abuses of power and other wrongdoing such as the 

manipulation of transcripts, attendance policy violations, hostility toward 

teachers, and improprieties in hiring and the assignment of work and classrooms. 

Id. at 7-8. To the extent that the appellant alleges she was retaliated against for 

making a protected disclosure or engaging in a protected activity, we may only 

consider such claims in the context of this appeal insofar as they relate to the 

issue of whether her resignation was voluntary, and not whether she established 

separate affirmative defenses.

5

 See Coufal v. Department of Justice, 

98 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 24 (2004); see also 5 U.S.C.§ 2302(b)(9)(A)-(B); Alarid v. 

Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 600, ¶ 10 (2015) (explaining that 

performing union-related duties, such as filing grievances and representing other 

employees in the grievance process, are protected activities under section 

2302(b)(9)). These new alleged bases for the agency’s actions fail for the same 

 

4 Although the appellant asserts that she suffers from back conditions that have resulted 

in lifting and sitting restrictions, PFR File, Tab 3 at 5-6, she does not clarify if her 

requests for accommodation were related to these conditions and restrictions.

5 An involuntary resignation claim is cognizable in an individual right of action (IRA) 

appeal. Mastrullo v. Department of Labor, 123 M.S.P.R. 110, ¶ 10 (2015). We make 

no finding regarding whether the Board would have jurisdiction over an IRA appeal of 

the appellant’s resignation or the viability of any such claim.
8

reasons the appellant’s allegations of EEO discrimination and reprisal failed 

below; they are unaccompanied by specific allegations of fact. 

The appellant’s new factual allegations do not state a basis to disturb the 

initial decision.

¶12 The appellant’s December 2014 declaration, which she submits for the first 

time on review, contains some specific allegations of fact. PFR File, Tab 3 at 

102-112. We have considered these allegations but haveaccorded them relatively 

little weight. The incidents described therein occurred at least 20 months prior to 

the appellant’s August 2016 resignation.

6

 IAF, Tab 6 at 14. Although an 

appellant is not limited to “any particular time frame” in asserting that an 

agency’s actions coerced her into resigning or retiring, “the most probative 

evidence of involuntariness will usually be evidence in which there is a relatively 

short period of time between the employer’s alleged coercive act and the 

employee’s retirement.” Terban v. Department of Energy, 216 F.3d 1021, 1024 

(Fed. Cir. 2000). Thus, in Terban, when the appellant decided to retire in June 

1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Board was 

well within its discretion when it afforded relatively little weight to t he 

intolerable working conditions that he allegedly suffered between 1993 and 1995. 

Id. at 1023-24. As the court noted, the appellant’s “own actions—i.e., continuing 

to withstand the unwelcome treatment—indicate that he had an alternative to 

retirement.” Id. at 1024-25.

¶13 To summarize, the appellant alleges such incidents as the following: (1) the 

Principal and Vice Principal interviewed students to solicit information that they 

then misrepresented and used against her, PFR File, Tab 3 at 105; (2) in a hostile 

 

6

In the petition for review, the appellant’s representative asserts that during her last 

3 months of employment, the appellant was subjected to various forms of harassment, 

such as the Vice Principal appearing at her classroom doorway and silently glaring at 

her on at least 50 occasions. PFR File, Tab 3 at 25-26. The appellant’s representative 

appears to be mistaken, as the appellant discussed these alleged incidents in her 

December 2014 declaration. Id. at 102-06, 109, 112.
9

email, the Vice Principal once demanded that she submit 2 weeks’ worth of 

lesson plans, id. at 107; (3) the Vice Principal told the appellant’s supervisor that 

she was the worst teacher in the school, id. at 109; (3) the Vice Principal tried to 

set her up for failure in 2013 by putting students who did not get along in her 

study hall, id. at 108; (4) in 2013, the Vice Principal violated procedures by 

setting up appointments between the appellant and the parents of two of her 

failing students on the last day of the school year rather than 2 weeks in advance, 

id. at 109-10; (5) in 2014, the Vice Principal repeatedly accused her, falsely, of 

showing movies all class period, id. at 106-07; and (6) on December 5, 2014, the 

Vice Principal coached a parent on what to say to the appellant during an 

unscheduled meeting he forced her to hold, after which he falsely accused the 

appellant of trying to avoid the parent in question, id. at 102-04.

¶14 We find that, even if proven, these alleged working conditions are not so 

difficult as to leave a reasonable person with no choice but to resign. An 

employee is not guaranteed a stress-free working environment. Brown, 

115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 15. Dissatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of 

being unfairly criticized, or difficult or unpleasant working conditions are 

generally not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign. Id. Thus, 

the Board has found that an appellant’s assertions of being overworked, 

groundlessly criticized, denied a merit increase and bonus, and denied a more 

flexible schedule than others, due in part to her sex, age, and prior EEO activity, 

failed to constitute nonfrivolous allegations that she was coerced into retiring. 

Id., ¶¶ 13, 15. Similarly, the appellant’s allegations here fail to amount to 

nonfrivolous allegations that she was coerced into resigning.

¶15 The appellant also asserted that the Vice Principal was physically 

threatening and that she was afraid he would physically harm her, in addition to 

causing her fear, stress, anxiety, and depression. PFR File, Tab 3 at 104-05. 

Specifically, the appellant alleged the following: (1) at the end of the 2013 

school year, she witnessed the Vice Principal follow and then yell at a colleague 
10

while closing the space between them, id. at 68, 111-12; (2) on December 13, 

2013, the Vice Principal “cornered” the appellant in her classroom and “denied 

[her] the right to have another teacher present” while he was there, which so 

unnerved her that she filed a police report, id. at 102; (3) in or before October

2014, the Vice Principal came to her classroom “more than 50 times” to silently 

stare at her, id. at 102; (4) after the appellant met with the Vice Principal in his 

office in November 2014, he arrived at his next meeting with his bloody hand 

wrapped in tissue, saying that he had lost his temper, id. at 104; and (5) one day 

in December 2014, the appellant returned to school 45 minutes after it had ended 

to find the Principal and Vice Principal standing at her classroom doorway, and 

later noticed indications that they had been at her desk—despite their suggestions 

to the contrary, id. at 112.

¶16 Although the appellant’s allegations concerning the Vice Principal’s 

threatening manner are smore concerning, the only specific alleged instances of 

such behavior occurred 20 or more months prior to her resignation. Because of 

this significant lapse in time, the alleged harassment and threatening behavior is

entitled to little weight in determining whether the appellant’s resignation was 

involuntary. See Terban, 216 F.3d at 1024. None of the appellant’s factual

allegations suggest that the agency was forcing her to make any type of decision 

in August 2016, and her decision to resign at that time appears to have been 

entirely self-initiated. See Brown, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 15 (declining to conclude 

an appellant nonfrivolously alleged she involuntarily retired under such 

circumstances); see also Terban, 216 F.3d at 1025 (finding that the petitioner was 

“unable to establish any precipitating event that occurred relatively close in time 

to his retirement which would have given a reasonable employee no choice but to 

retire”).

¶17 The appellant indicated she filed an EEO complaint in or about 

December 2013, PFR File, Tab 3 at 102, but asserts that an EEO administrator 

“refused to properly process or otherwise entertain” her complaints of 
11

discrimination and that the agency “improperly sat on” and refused to investigate 

her complaints,7 id. at 7. Although an agency’s mishandling of an appellant’s 

EEO complaint may be considered in evaluating her claim of involuntary 

resignation, Axsom v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 110 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 17 

(2009), here the appellant’s EEO complaint was before the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by at least October 2014, PFR File, Tab 3 

at 29. Accordingly, regardless of whether the agency mishandled her EEO 

complaint, the appellant was able to pursue her claims before the EEOC long 

before her resignation, and she does not assert that her claims were inadequately 

addressed in that forum.8

¶18 “[T]he doctrine of coercive involuntariness is a narrow one.” 

Staats, 99 F.3d at 1124. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find 

that the appellant’s allegations fail to indicate that her working conditions were 

made so difficult that a reasonable person in her position would have felt 

compelled to resign at the time she did. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

review, and affirm the initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction without holding a hearing.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS9

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 

 

7

The appellant also asserts that an EEO manager facilitated and enabled discrimination 

and retaliation against her, but provides no specific factual allegations in support of her 

assertion. PFR File, Tab 3 at 7.

8

The record does not reveal how the appellant’s EEO complaint was resolved.

9

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.
12

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 

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 
13

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. 

(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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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, 
14

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

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.10 The court of appeals must receive your petition for 

 

10 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. 
15

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. 

 

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

132 Stat. 1510. 
16

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:

Washington, D.C.

/s/ for

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board