NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GEORGE DIMITRIOS SKRETTAS,

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 

______________________ 

GEORGE DIMITRIOS SKRETTAS, Ann Arbor, MI, pro se.

SARAH CHOI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., REGINALD T. BLADES,

JR. 

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.
2 SKRETTAS v. DVA

HUGHES, 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 Veterans Affairs (VA) for unsatisfactory performance. Mr. Skrettas filed a complaint for harassment/hostile work environment, which he appealed to 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). The matter 

was resolved by an 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 Protection Board.” Id. at 29–30. The Board dismissed the 

appeal in light of the settlement agreement, and notified 

the parties that the agreement 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 retaliation for whistleblower 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 discretion, 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 adjudicate an appeal 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 agreement under “duress of false charges” because the VA 

failed to convert his termination to a voluntary resignation in a timely manner. Pet. Br. 2–4. The government 

contends that the plain language of the agreement makes 

clear that Mr. Skrettas entered into the agreement freely

and voluntarily. Resp. Br. 11. 

We 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 understands 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 McCall v. United States Postal Serv., 839 F.2d 664, 

667–69 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Mays v. United States Postal 

Serv., 995 F.2d 1056, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 
4 SKRETTAS v. DVA

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 judgment. 

AFFIRMED

No costs.