N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
GEORGE DIMITRIOS SKR ETTAS, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

______________________

2015

- 3228

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. CH

- 0752

- 15

- 0099 -I- 1.

______________________

Decided: March 10 , 2016

______________________
G EORGE D IMITRIOS S KRETTAS , Ann Arbor, MI, pro se.

S ARAH C HOI , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil D ivision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R

. , R EGINALD T. B LADES , J R

.

______________________
Before T ARANTO , C LEVENGER , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.SKRETTAS v. DVA 2

H UGHES , Circuit Judge

. George Skrettas appeals from the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board did not err in finding that Mr. Skrettas waived his appeal rights in a prior settlement agreement , we affirm.

I On August 12, 2011, Mr. Skrettas was terminated from his position as a registered respiratory therapist at the Department of V eterans Affairs (VA) for unsatisfact ory performance

. Mr. Skrettas filed a complaint for ha rassment/hostile work environ ment , which he appealed to the Merit Systems Protec tion Board (Board)

. The matter was resolved by a n October 2011 settlement agreement, under which the VA agreed to rescind Mr. Skrettas ’s removal and convert the action to a voluntary resignation

. Respondent’s Appendix (R.A.) 29

– 30. In exchange, Mr. Skrettas withdrew his appeal and agreed to “waive[] any and all rights and claims arising from the facts of the [] MSPB Appeal and EEO Complaint in any other forum

, including but not limited to .

. . the Merit Systems Prote ction Board .” Id. at 29

– 30

. The Board dismissed the appeal in lig ht of the settlement agreement , and notified the parties that the agree ment is not subject to Board enforcement.
Several years later, in November 2014, Mr. Skrettas filed a second Board appeal

, this time alleging that the August 2011 termination was in retaliatio n for whistl eblower activity. Id. at 6. The Board dismissed Mr. Skrettas ’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it found that he had waived his appeal rights in the October 2011 settlement agreement. Id. at 8.

Mr. Skrettas appeals the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9)

.SKRETTAS v. DVA 3

II We may only hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions found to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discreti on, 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). Whether the Board has jurisdiction to adjud icate an a ppeal is a question of law, which we review de

novo. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 47 F.3d 409 , 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We are bound by the Board’s factual findings on which a jurisdictional determination is based unless those findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Mr. Skrettas asserts that he entered into the agre ement under “duress of false charges” because the VA failed to convert his termination to a voluntary resign ation in a timely manner . Pet. Br. 2–4. T he government contends that the plain language of the agreement makes clear that Mr. Skrettas entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily. Resp. Br. 11

. W e agree with the Board’s determination that Mr. Skrettas ’s waiver of appeal rights is enforceable. R.A. 8. The settlement agreement states that both parties entered into the agreement “freely and voluntarily with no unwarranted duress or undue influence from any person or source.” Id. at 31. Mr. Skrettas agreed that he “thoroughly reviewed the entire Agreement and unde rstands its provisions.” Id. at 30. Therefore, we find that Mr. Skrettas entered into the settlement agreement voluntarily, and was not under duress or undue influence. See McCal l v. United States Postal Serv. , 839 F.2d 664, 66 7– 69 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ; Mays v. United States Postal Serv. , 995 F.2d 1056, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993).SKRETTAS v. DVA 4

Because Mr. Skrettas waived his appeal rights, the Board properly dismissed Mr. Skrettas ’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s jud gment

. AFFIRMED

No costs.