UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

KEVIN A. WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-3443-14-0498-I-1

DATE: October 20, 2014

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL∗

Kevin A. Williams, Suitland, Maryland, pro se.

Miriam Jacks Achtenberg, Esquire, and Kate Parkhurst, Esquire, 

Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such 

as this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material 

fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or 

 ∗ A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the 

judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were 

not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and 

the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence 

or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not 

available when the record closed. See Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this 

appeal, and based on the following points and authorities, we conclude that the 

petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the 

petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM 

the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113(b). 

¶2 In his appeal, the appellant identified himself as a term employee and 

complained that the agency failed to give him notice that it would not renew his 

contract. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. He included a copy of a Release and 

Transition Agreement that indicates, in pertinent part, that his excepted service 

term appointment with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ended on 

February 23, 2014. Id. The administrative judge gave the appellant specific 

notice of his burden to establish jurisdiction over his appeal, IAF, Tab 3, but the 

appellant did not respond. The agency moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction, IAF, Tab 7, and the administrative judge did so, on the written 

record without holding a hearing, IAF, Tab 9. 

¶3 The appellant subsequently faxed a letter to the Board in which he indicated 

that he “would like to withdraw the appeal with the right to refile it at a later date 

if needed.” Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. Later that same day, the 

appellant faxed another letter in which he cited case law that he asserts provides a 

basis for Board jurisdiction over his appeal. Id. The agency responded in 

opposition. PFR File, Tab 5. 
3

¶4 The Board generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time 

in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material 

evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence. Banks v. 

Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980). Because the appellant

offers no explanation for why he failed to assert these arguments in his appeal 

below, we have not considered them. In any event, our precedent is clear that 

when the appellant’s appointment expired, his employment with the agency ended 

automatically, and was not an adverse action appealable to the Board. E.g., 

Murdock-Doughty v. Department of the Air Force, 74 M.S.P.R. 244, 252 (1997); 

see also Berger v. Department of Commerce, 3 M.S.P.R. 198, 199-200 (1980) (the 

separation of a term appointee at the expiration of the term specified at the time 

of appointment is not an appealable adverse action); 5 C.F.R. § 316.303.

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 
4

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