NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

MARTRICIA J. CHAPMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3066 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. AT0752100423-I-1. 

__________________________ 

Decided: July 12, 2011 

__________________________ 

MARTRICIA J. CHAPMAN, of Huntsville, Alabama, pro 

se. 

STEPHANIE M. CONLEY, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, 

DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were JAMES M.

EISENMANN, General Counsel and KEISHA DAWN BELL, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

__________________________ 
CHAPMAN v. MSPB 2

Before PROST, MAYER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Martricia J. Chapman appeals a final order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. See Chapman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 

115 M.S.P.R. 531 (M.S.P.B. 2010). We affirm. 

Chapman was employed as a City Carrier with the 

United States Postal Service at the agency’s Wynn Drive 

Station in Huntsville, Alabama. After the agency terminated her for failure to maintain a regular work schedule, 

she appealed to the board. On February 25, 2010, the 

agency moved to dismiss Chapman’s appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. The administrative judge thereafter issued 

an order informing Chapman of her burden to establish 

that the board had jurisdiction over her appeal. The 

order specifically outlined the criteria for establishing 

board jurisdiction as set forth in 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a). 

Chapman responded by submitting several personnel 

forms which stated that she was not a preference eligible 

employee. 

On April 28, 2010, the administrative judge dismissed 

Chapman’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. After the board 

denied Chapman’s petition for review, she timely appealed to this court. 

The board’s jurisdiction is not plenary, but is limited 

to those matters over which it has been granted jurisdiction by law, rule or regulation. See 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a); 

Johnston v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). Chapman had the burden of proving, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the board had jurisdiction over her appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2)(i). 

A Postal Service employee has limited appeal rights. 

Such an employee may appeal an adverse personnel 
3 CHAPMAN v. MSPB

action to the board if, in this case, she has completed one 

year of current, continuous service in the same or a similar position and (1) is a preference eligible veteran, or (2) 

is a supervisor, a management employee, or an employee 

engaged in non-clerical personnel work. 39 U.S.C. 

§ 1005(a); see Waldau v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 19 F.3d 

1395, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Chapman failed to establish 

that she met these criteria. To the contrary, the personnel forms submitted to the board show that she was a 

carrier employee and was not entitled to veterans’ preference. She has failed to present, moreover, any evidence 

that her position as a city carrier makes her a “supervisor, 

a management employee, or an employee engaged in nonclerical personnel work.” 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a). 

Accordingly, the board correctly determined that it 

lacked jurisdiction to consider her appeal.