NOTE: Pursuant to Fed . Cir. R. 47.6, this dispo s ition is not citable as precede nt. It is a pu blic record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-3247

ERIC WILLIAMS, Petitioner,

v. U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERN ATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: November 15, 2005

______ ____________________ Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM.

Eric Williams seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") dismissing his appeal in whic h, pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEO A”), 38 U.S.C. § 4311, he chal lenged his nonselection for the position of Auditor with Office of In spector General in the United States Agency for International Development ("agency"). Williams v. United States Agency for Int'l Dev. , No. AT0330040227-C-1 (Sept. 27, 2004) (" Final Decision "). We affirm

. I Mr. Williams is a veteran of the U.S. armed forces and has a disability rating of 30 percent. Mr. Williams applied for the positi on of Auditor with the Office of Inspector General of the agency. When he was not selected for the position, Mr. Williamsappealed to the Board, arguing that the agency violated hi s rights under the VEOA as it failed to c onsider his status as a dis abl ed vetera n. In an initial d e c ision, the administrative judge found t hat the agenc y had violated VEO A, as "the appellant' s status as a veteran was not considered as part of the selection process," and remanded to the agency for a "reconstruction of all select ion actions . . . for which milit ary service
was not consider ed." Williams v. Unit ed States Agency for Int'l De v. , Nos. AT0330040226-I-1, AT0330040227- I-1 (Apr. 12, 2004) (" Initia l Decis i on "). After reconstruction, Mr. William s was once more turned down for the position, and he once again appealed to the Board. However, in this second dec i sion, the administrative judge noted that the agency h ad properly considere d Mr. Willia ms' status as a disa bled veteran and den ie d Mr. Willia ms further relief. Fina l Dec i sion at 2. The full Board denied petition for review and th e administrative judge's decision became the final d e cision of the Board. Mr. Williams timely app ealed, a n d we hav e jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II We must affirm final decisi ons of the Board unless they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or ot herwise not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulati on; or unsupported by s ubstantial evidenc e. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000); Hayes v. Dep't of the Navy , 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
III The only issue before this court is whether the agency pro perly considered
Mr. William s ' status as a disable d veteran w hen it de cline d to offer him the position of

05-3247 2Auditor. Notwithstanding the administrative judge's initial dec ision, the record is clear that, when the agency initiall y evaluated the applicants fo r the Auditor position, it awarded Mr. Willia ms the maximum n u m ber of points, ten, for status as a d i sab l ed veteran. The agenc y also awarded Mr. W illiams five points for "Other Related Experience," five points for "Office Software," and five points for "Academic Honors/GPA," for a total of 25 points, fe wer than the 35 and 60 points awarded to the two indiv i duals who were offered the position. Howev e r, despite ha ving a w arded Mr. Williams ten point s for "Veterans Preference," the agency erroneously admitted to the administr ative judge in the initia l
appea l that it had not considere d Mr. Williams' status as a veteran. Thus, when the administrative judge r e manded f o r reconstructi on of the selection process, the agency sought to a dd po ints to Mr. Willia ms' rating. As Mr. Williams ha d already b e en awarde d the maximum number of point s under the "Veterans Prefer ence" category, the agenc y added points in the category "Other Relat ed Exper ience." M r . Williams had be en awarded five points in this category in the initial selection process, so the agency awarded him an additional five points, br i nging him to the maximum of ten points allowed in t h is category. In addition to the ten points for "Veter ans Preference" and the ten points for "Other Related Experience," the agency once more awarded Mr. Williams five points f o r "Office Software" and five points for "Acad e mi c Honors/GPA," fo r a to tal of 30 points. Thus, once again, Mr. Williams h ad fewer points than the 35 and 60 points o f the two indiv i duals who were offe red the job.

05-3247 3Mr. Willia ms, understandably under the impr essio n that he had not been awarded any points for "Veterans Preference" in the initial selecti on, contends that he should hav e been awarded ten additi onal points, not five. This would hav e brought his rating to 35 points, the same as that of one of the selected applicants. Because
5 C.F.R. § 332.401 requires t hat disabled veterans be granted preference over nondisab l ed v e terans wit h the same rating, Mr. Williams may then have be en offered the job. Howev e r, it is clear that Mr. Wi lliams' initial rating of 25, and his subsequent rating of 30, included ten point s for "Vet erans Preference," the maximum allowed. Thus, substantial ev idence supports the adm inistrative judge's determination that Mr. William s ' status as a disabled veteran was properly considered , and we affirm.

05-3247 4