UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

STEPHANIE L. STEWART,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DA-0351-11-0307-X-1

DATE: August 21, 2014

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Terrence J. Johns, New Orleans, Louisiana, for the appellant.

Sandy S. Francois and Thomas E. Dunn, New Orleans, Louisiana, for the 

agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 On October 3, 2012, the administrative judge issued a recommended 

decision that the Board find, under the Board’s regulations in effect at that time, 

the agency in non-compliance with the administrative judge’s March 13, 2012 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2

initial decision that became the Board’s final decision on April 17, 2012. MSPB 

Docket No. DA-0351-11-0307-I-1, Initial Decision (ID) (Mar. 13, 2012). The

Board had reversed the agency’s action demoting the appellant from her position 

as a Contract Representative, GS-096207, pursuant to a reduction in force. The 

Board ordered the agency to reassess the appellant’s qualifications for the 

positions of Program Analyst, GS-0343; Civilian Pay Technician, GS-0544; and 

Financial Management Assistant, GS-0503, at or below the GS-07 level. If the 

appellant was found qualified for one of these positions, the agency was ordered 

to cancel the appellant’s demotion and place her in one of those positions, or a 

position of like grade, pay, tenure, and commuting area. The Board also ordered 

the agency to pay the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest, 

and to adjust her benefits with the appropriate credits and deductions. ID. 

¶2 The administrative judge found that the agency had not met its burden to 

demonstrate compliance with the Board’s order. MSPB Docket No. 

DA-0351-11-0307-C-1, Compliance Initial Decision (CID) (Oct. 3, 2012). The 

administrative judge therefore ordered the agency to provide documentation 

establishing that it had canceled the appellant’s demotion, returned her to an 

appropriate position, and issued the appellant a check for the appropriate amount 

of back pay, with interest, and adjusted her benefits with the appropriate credits 

and deductions. CID. The matter was referred to the Board for consideration. 2

 

See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183 (Jan. 1, 2012).

¶3 The agency has produced evidence establishing that it placed the appellant

in the position of Financial Management Assistant, GS-0503, at the GS-07 Step 

10 level, located in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, effective December 

4, 2011. MSPB Docket No. DA-0351-11-0307-X-1, Compliance Referral File 

 2 Except as otherwise noted in this decision, we have applied the Board’s regulations 

that became effective November 13, 2012. We note, however, that the petition for 

enforcement in this case was filed before that date. The revisions to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.183 do not affect our consideration of the merits of this compliance proceeding.
3

(CRF), Tab 9. The agency also produced evidence that it has paid the appellant 

for the back pay lost between January 2008 and her reinstatement in December 

2011. CRF, Tab 14. The agency has detailed its calculation of interest on the 

back pay award, using the appropriate daily interest rates. See CRF, Tab 18 at

6-10. The information submitted by the agency indicates that a total of $7,348.80 

in gross back pay and $909.77 in interest was paid to the appellant. CRF, Tab 18

at 11.

¶4 In response to the agency’s submissions, the appellant argued that she 

should have been placed in a GS-0343-07/09/11 ladder position due to her 

qualifications. CRF, Tab 15. The appellant also argued that the agency’s back 

pay calculations are not in the correct format. CRF, Tabs 15, 19. 

¶5 We find that the agency has complied with the Board’s order by placing the 

appellant in the position of Financial Management Assistant, GS-07. Contrary to 

the appellant’s argument, the Board’s Order did not require that she be placed in a 

GS-0343-07/09/11 career ladder position. Rather, the Board’s Order required 

only that her qualifications be evaluated, and, if the qualifications were sufficient, 

that she be placed in a GS-07 level position. Notably, one of the three 

appropriate positions identified in the Board’s Order was the position of Financial 

Management Assistant, GS-0503-07, the position in which the appellant was 

placed. IAF, Tab 31 at 25. 

¶6 We also find that the agency has established compliance with the back pay 

requirement of the Board’s Order. The agency has submitted documentation 

showing the daily compounding of interest on the back pay award. CRF, Tab 18. 

As the appellant has not made any specific allegation regarding what alternative 

format she believes this information should have been in, we reject the 

appellant’s argument that the agency has not complied with this aspect of the 

Board’s Order. See CRF, Tab 19. 

¶7 We therefore find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for 

enforcement. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in 
4

this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 

1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)). 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney 

fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of 

the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The 

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If 

you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees 

WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You 

must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision 

on your appeal.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to 

the court at the following address:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days 

after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 

2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held 

that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and 

that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. 

Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to 

court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in 
5

Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United 

States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm. 

Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. 

Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and 

Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 

6, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your court 

appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of 

attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for 

Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. The Merit Systems 

Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor 

warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board