UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

2014 MSPB 75

Docket No. CH-0752-14-0332-I-1

John Doe,

Appellant,

v.

Department of Justice,

Agency.

September 23, 2014

J. Michael Hannon, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

Kimya Jones and Jill A. Weissman, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the 

agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

OPINION AND ORDER

¶1 This removal appeal is before us on the administrative judge’s June 5, 2014 

order certifying for interlocutory review her ruling that she would not consider 

the appellant’s claim of legal error or his affirmative defenses of reprisal and 

discrimination. We AFFIRM this ruling, VACATE the order that stayed the 

processing of the appeal, and RETURN this case to the regional office for further 

adjudication consistent with this decision.
2

BACKGROUND

¶2 The agency removed the appellant based on the charges of (1) failure to 

maintain a qualification for his position, and (2) posing an operational security 

risk to the office. Doe v. Department of Justice, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 3 (2012)

(Doe I). The appellant filed an appeal of his removal to the Board. Id., ¶ 5. The 

administrative judge found that the second charge merged into the first charge, 

which was based on the appellant’s failure to maintain his eligibility to hold a 

Special-Sensitive, Level 4 position. Id., ¶¶ 2, 6. After determining that the 

charge was functionally equivalent to a security clearance determination, the 

administrative judge affirmed the appellant’s removal. Id. ¶¶ 8, 13. He rejected 

as unproven the appellant’s affirmative defenses of reprisal for whistleblowing, 

reprisal for equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity, and disability 

discrimination. Id. ¶¶ 9-11. 

¶3 The appellant filed a petition for review. Id., ¶ 14. We granted the petition 

and vacated the initial decision based on our finding that the agency failed to 

apply its internal procedures when it did not provide the appellant with the right 

to appeal the decision to withdraw his eligibility for access to classified 

information to the agency’s Access Review Committee (ARC). Id., ¶¶ 26, 29-31, 

42; see 28 C.F.R. § 17.15 (establishing the ARC), § 17.47(d) (setting forth the 

right to appeal to the ARC). However, we declined to consider the appellant’s 

affirmative defenses, finding that the Board does not have authority to review 

them in the context of a case involving the suspension or revocation of access to 

classified information. Doe I, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶¶ 39-40. We remanded the 

appeal to the agency to provide the appellant with his right to ARC review of the 

determination that he was ineligible for access to hold a Special-Sensitive, Level 

4 position. Id., ¶¶ 33, 42.

¶4 On remand, ARC reversed the determination that the appellant was no 

longer eligible for access to classified information. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 

22 at 62, 66. The appellant timely filed the instant appeal after receiving ARC’s 
3

decision. IAF, Tab 1; see Doe I, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 44 (permitting the appellant 

to file a new appeal no later than 30 days after the agency advised the appellant it 

complied with the order in Doe I).

¶5 During the adjudication of the appellant’s new appeal, the administrative 

judge 1 held a status conference, after which she issued a summary of her rulings, 

including her ruling that she would limit the hearing to whether the agency 

committed harmful procedural error in removing the appellant prior to ARC’s

review of his eligibility to hold a Special-Sensitive, Level 4 position. IAF, 

Tab 16 at 1. In her summary, she provided a deadline by which the parties could 

raise disagreement with its content. IAF, Tab 16 at 2. Within the timeframe 

provided, the appellant filed a motion to expand the scope of the hearing, also 

noting his disagreement and objection to the administrative judge’s status 

conference rulings. IAF, Tab 18. The administrative judge confirmed her prior 

ruling. IAF, Tab 21. Upon the appellant’s motion, and over the agency’s

objections, the administrative judge certified for interlocutory review her decision 

to limit the scope of the hearing to the issue of harmful error only. 2

 IAF, Tabs 

22, 24, 32.

 

1 The administrative judge assigned to the present appeal is not the same administrative 

judge who adjudicated the appellant’s claims in Doe I.

2 Both the appellant’s motion for certification of interlocutory review and the agency’s 

objections were timely filed. See IAF, Tab 21 (denying the appellant’s motion to 

expand the hearing on May 8, 2013), Tab 22 (reflecting that the motion for certification 

of interlocutory review was filed on May 12, 2013), Tab 24 (reflecting that the agency’s 

objections were filed on May 22, 2014); see also 5 C.F.R. § 1201.93(a) (indicating that 

a party has 10 days from the date of the ruling appealed to file for interlocutory appeal, 

and the opposing party has 10 days to object). 

Without requesting leave, the appellant has submitted two supplemental pleadings to 

the Board following certification. IAF, Tabs 33, 35. The agency has moved to strike 

the first of these pleadings. IAF, Tab 34. In rendering our decision, we have not 

considered these three submissions. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.93 (containing no provision 

for submission of briefs following certification of an appeal for interlocutory review).
4

ANALYSIS

Interlocutory review is not barred by the law of the case doctrine because recent 

developments raise questions about the Board’s scope of review of a security

clearance based adverse action.

¶6 The agency objected to certification of the administrative judge’s ruling for 

interlocutory review, arguing that the Board stated in Doe I that the

administrative judge in the instant appeal could adopt the findings set forth in the 

initial decision in Doe I. IAF, Tab 24 at 1. Thus, the agency appears to be 

arguing that expanding the scope of the hearing to consider the appellant’s claims 

of legal error, reprisal, and discrimination violates the law of the case doctrine. 

Although we recognize that we previously declined to consider the appellant’s 

affirmative defenses of reprisal and discrimination in Doe I, we find that recent 

developments in the case law regarding adverse actions based on security 

clearance determinations warrants a second look at the issues in this appeal and 

we find certification proper.

¶7 Under the law of the case doctrine, a tribunal will not reconsider issues that 

have already been decided in an appeal, unless there is new and material evidence 

adduced at a subsequent trial, controlling authority has made a contrary decision 

of law, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest 

injustice. O’Connell v. Department of Navy, 73 M.S.P.R. 235, 240 (1997). The 

purpose of the doctrine is to ensure consistency, thereby avoiding the expense 

and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserving the Board’s resources, and 

fostering reliance on the Board by avoiding inconsistent decisions. See Hoover v. 

Department of the Navy, 57 M.S.P.R. 545, 552 (1993) (setting forth this rationale

in the context of litigation in general).

¶8 Our finding in Doe I that the Board lacked authority to hear the appellant’s 

affirmative defenses was based on our determination that the appellant’s 

eligibility to occupy a Special-Sensitive, Level 4 position was analogous to a 

security clearance determination. Doe I, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶¶ 39-40. 

Subsequently, in the unrelated case of Gargiulo v. Department of Homeland 
5

Security, 727 F.3d 1181, 1184-87 (Fed. Cir. 2013), our reviewing court found that 

we exceeded our authority when we found that due process requires that an

employee be provided an opportunity to contest a security determination

underlying an adverse action. See Buelna v. Department of Homeland 

Security, 121 M.S.P.R. 262, ¶ 24 (2014) (discussing our prior precedent and the 

Gargiulo decision). When the administrative judge certified her ruling for 

interlocutory review, the Board had not yet issued a decision regarding the scope 

of its review in an adverse action based on a security clearance determination

following Gargiulo. Thus, there was a question as to whether a controlling 

authority had made a contrary decision of law, and we hold that the law of the 

case doctrine does not prevent us from reconsidering our prior decision.

3

 

¶9 Further, our regulations provide that an administrative judge will certify a 

ruling for interlocutory review if the ruling involves an important question of law 

or policy about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and an 

immediate ruling will materially advance the completion of the proceeding, or the 

denial of an immediate ruling will cause undue harm to the party or the 

public. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92. In light of the lack of guidance in the area of 

adverse actions based on security clearance determinations at the time of 

certification, we find that certification was proper.

4

 

3 In light of our disposition here, we find it unnecessary to reach the appellant’s 

argument that the law of the case doctrine does not apply because of “manifest 

injustice.” IAF, Tab 18 at 21-22, Tab 22 at 8-9.

4 In making our determination, we disagree with the appellant’s assertion that ARC’s 

reversal of the agency’s decision to find him ineligible to access classified information 

constitutes new and substantially different evidence under the law of the case doctrine. 

See, e.g., IAF, Tab 18 at 7, 16 (arguing that the Board could not have predicted ARC’s 

determination, and that it constituted “new and compelling evidence”), Tab 22 at 6-7 

(arguing that the Board is free to revisit its decision in light of the ARC decision). Our 

decision in Doe I contemplated the possibility of such a determination, and therefore 

this is not new evidence but rather a further development of the Board’s record. Doe I,

118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶¶ 33, 44. The appellant also argues that the decision by our 
6

The administrative judge properly declined to expand the hearing to include the 

appellant’s affirmative defenses of discrimination and reprisal.

¶10 We recently reaffirmed our pre-Gargiulo case law that the Board is not 

permitted to adjudicate whether an agency’s adverse action, which is premised on 

the suspension or revocation of a security clearance, constitutes impermissible 

discrimination or reprisal. Putnam v. Department of Homeland 

Security, 2014 MSPB 70, ¶ 18 (citing, among other cases, Doe I, 118 M.S.P.R. 

434, ¶ 40). Therefore, despite recent changes in the law, our prior decision in 

Doe I was correct. The administrative judge therefore properly declined to 

expand the scope of the hearing to include the appellant’s affirmative defenses. 5

 

IAF, Tabs 21, 32; see Doe I, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶¶ 39-40.

 

reviewing court in Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012), is 

contrary to our prior holding in Doe I. IAF, Tab 18 at 17 (arguing that the Board need 

not defer to its prior holding in Doe I in light of Whitmore), Tab 22 at 7 (arguing that 

Whitmore is “new controlling case law”). However, Whitmore was issued prior to our 

decision in Doe I, and we expressly found that it did not alter our analysis of the 

appellant’s whistleblower claim. Doe I, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 39 n.6. We see no reason 

to disturb that finding. 

5 The original appeal was filed prior to the December 27, 2012 effective date of the 

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA). See MSPB Docket No. 

CH-0752-09-0404-I-1, IAF, Tab 1 (reflecting a submission date of February 11, 2009);

see also WPEA, Pub. L. No. 112-199, § 202, 126 Stat. 1465, 1476 (indicating that the 

WPEA would take effect 30 days after its enactment date of November 27, 2012); King 

v. Department of the Air Force, 119 M.S.P.R. 663, ¶ 3 (2013) (noting that the WPEA

was signed into law on November 27, 2012, with an effective date of December 27, 

2012). Therefore, the Board applied the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) in 

determining that the appellant could not raise an affirmative defense of reprisal for 

whistleblowing activity. Doe I, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 39 (citing Hesse v. Department of 

State, 217 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the denial of a security 

clearance cannot serve as the basis for the Board’s jurisdiction in an individual right of 

action appeal brought under the WPA); Roach v. Department of the Army, 82 M.S.P.R. 

464, ¶¶ 48-54 (1999) (holding that 1994 amendments to the WPA did not provide the 

Board with jurisdiction over security clearance determinations)). However, we have 

examined the WPEA and find that nothing in the Act permits the Board to consider an 

affirmative defense of reprisal for whistleblowing in the context of an adverse action 

based on a security clearance determination. See Roach, 82 M.S.P.R. 464, ¶¶ 50, 53-54 

(finding that the WPA’s 1994 amendments did not authorize the Board to review 
7

The administrative judge properly declined to expand the hearing to include 

whether the appellant’s removal was not in accordance with law.

¶11 The appellant argued that the agency’s decision to remove him was “not in 

accordance with law” and thus cannot be sustained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7701(c)(2)(C). IAF, Tab 18 at 9-13. The administrative judge declined to 

expand the scope of the hearing to include this issue. IAF, Tab 32 at 2. The 

agency’s failure to provide the appellant with his right to ARC review of the

determination that he was not eligible to hold a Special-Sensitive, Level 4 

position is properly analyzed under a harmful procedural error standard. 

Therefore we affirm the administrative judge’s ruling that she would not hear the

claim of legal error.

¶12 Section 7701(c)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that an adverse action may 

not be sustained if the employee “(A) shows harmful error in the application of 

the agency’s procedures in arriving at such decision; . . . or (C) shows that the 

decision was not in accordance with law.” The “harmful error” provision of 

section 7701(c)(2) is applicable to all procedural errors, such as the one here, 

while the “not in accordance with law” provision is applicable to other unlawful 

actions. Baracco v. Department of Transportation, 15 M.S.P.R. 112, 120 (1983),

aff’d sub nom. Adams v. Department of Transportation, 735 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 

1984). To hold otherwise would render the harmful error provision meaningless 

because all violations of agency procedure would be reviewed as “not in 

accordance with law.” Baracco, 15 M.S.P.R. 112, 120-21 (explaining the 

interplay between these two provision of section 7701(c)(2) in the context of an 

agency’s failure to provide 7-days’ notice to answer a proposed adverse action as 

required by 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2)); see Schnedar v. Department of the Air 

 

security clearance issues in chapter 75 appeals because they lacked specific language 

providing otherwise); see generally WPEA, Pub. L. No. 112-199, 126 Stat. 1465

(containing no provision for raising a claim that a security clearance determination was 

taken in reprisal for whistleblowing activity).
8

Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 516, ¶¶ 8, 12 (2014) (evaluating under a harmful error 

standard an agency’s failure to comply with applicable regulations in instituting 

an adverse action based on the revocation of an appellant’s security clearance); 

Ulep v. Department of the Army, 120 M.S.P.R. 579, ¶¶ 4, 6 (2014) (conducting 

the same analysis where an agency issued an adverse action based on the 

suspension of the appellant’s security clearance without the procedural 

protections afforded under applicable regulations). Because the error at issue 

here was the agency’s application of its procedures, the harmful error standard is 

applicable.

The administrative judge may determine without holding a hearing whether there 

was harmful error.

¶13 The appellant argued that the agency’s removal should be reversed as

harmful error without the necessity of holding a hearing.

6

 IAF, Tab 18 at 13-14. 

This issue is beyond the scope of our review at this time because the 

administrative judge did not certify it for interlocutory appeal. See 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.91 (defining an interlocutory appeal as an appeal to the Board, certified by 

the administrative judge, of a ruling made during a proceeding); cf. Grimes v. 

 

6 The Board is not permitted to grant summary judgment because an appellant has the 

right to a hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1). Crispin v. Department of 

Commerce, 732 F.2d 919, 922-24 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, as with his right to a 

hearing on the merits, an appellant may waive his right to a hearing on the issue of 

harmful error. See Towne v. Department of the Air Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 239, ¶ 34 

(2013) (proceeding to address a harmful error claim after the appellant waived her right 

to a hearing on the issue). The administrative judge should clarify whether the 

appellant intends to waive his right to a hearing and provide the parties with the 

opportunity to brief the relevant legal and factual issues and to respond to each other’s 

submissions. Campbell v. Department of Defense, 102 M.S.P.R. 178, ¶ 5 (2006) (an 

appellant may only waive his right to a hearing if the waiver is (1) clear, unequivocal, 

or decisive; and (2) informed); Gavette v. Department of the Treasury, 44 M.S.P.R. 

166, 174 (1990) (where the appellant waives the right to a hearing, setting the deadline 

for closing the record is within the sound discretion of the administrative judge, but the 

procedures used must comport with the basic requirements of fairness and notice, 

including an opportunity for response to the opposing party’s submissions).
9

Department of the Navy, 99 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 9 (2005) (holding that it was beyond 

the scope of the Board’s interlocutory review to decide issues on which the 

administrative judge did not make specific rulings). However, in light of recent 

Board precedent, the administrative judge may determine that the record is 

sufficiently developed to determine, without holding a hearing, whether there was 

harmful error.

¶14 Under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(A), the Board may not sustain an agency’s 

decision to impose an adverse action if the employee can show “harmful error in 

the application of the agency’s procedures in arriving at such decision.” 

Ulep, 120 M.S.P.R. 579, ¶ 6 (reversing an indefinite suspension based on the 

decision to informally suspend the appellant’s security clearance because the 

agency failed to comply with any of the procedures that its regulations required 

prior to instituting an adverse action); Schnedar, 120 M.S.P.R. 516, ¶ 12 

(reversing an indefinite suspension based on the revocation of the appellant’s

security clearance because the suspension was effected prior to the appellant’s 

receipt of a Personnel Security Appeals Board decision, in violation of agency 

regulations). Harmful error cannot be presumed; an agency error is harmful only 

where the record shows that the procedural error was likely to have caused the 

agency to reach a conclusion different from the one it would have reached in the 

absence or cure of the error. Stephen v. Department of the Air Force, 47 

M.S.P.R. 672, 681, 685 (1991); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(c)(3). The appellant bears the 

burden of proof by preponderant evidence with regard to harmful error. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(a)(2)(iii), (b)(1), (c)(3). However, where an agency, upon following 

its regulations, affords an employee a favorable security clearance determination, 

its prior adverse action based on the revocation of the security clearance cannot 

be sustained. Blatt v. Department of the Army, 121 M.S.P.R. 473, ¶ 10 (2014).

¶15 In Doe I, we left further determination regarding harmful error in the 

instant appeal to the administrative judge’s sound discretion. Doe 

I, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 44; see Bennett v. Department of Justice, 119 M.S.P.R. 
10

685, ¶ 11 (2013) (declining to make a determination of fact because the 

administrative judge, as the hearing official, is in the best position to resolve 

factual questions in the first instance). There appears to be no factual dispute that 

the ARC reversed the agency’s prior determination that the appellant was no 

longer eligible for access to classified information. IAF, Tab 22 at 97-102

(containing the decision by ARC); see IAF, Tab 27 at 5, 7-12 (stating, in the 

agency’s prehearing submission, that “the ARC issued a decision finding that the 

appellant is currently eligible to have access to classified information,” and 

submitting a copy of the decision). We see no reason to interfere in the 

administrative judge’s processing of the appeal. However, on the record before 

us, it appears that a hearing may not be required to resolve the issue of harmful 

error.

ORDER

¶16 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the administrative judge’s ruling that she would 

not hold a hearing on the appellant’s claim of legal error or his affirmative 

defenses of discrimination and reprisal, VACATE the stay order, and RETURN 

this matter to the Central Regional Office for further adjudication consistent with 

this interlocutory decision.

FOR THE BOARD:

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.