UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

JESSIE LUMPKINS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-0752-13-0297-C-1

DATE: September 16, 2016

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Vaughn Simms, Ridgeland, Mississippi, for the appellant.

Johnston B. Walker, Jackson, Mississippi, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial 

decision, which dismissed the petition for enforcement 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 

 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of 

the law to the facts of the case; the administrative 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, 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 The appellant filed this petition for enforcement, alleging that the agency 

breached a last chance settlement agreement (LCSA) by assigning him to the 

wrong position under the agreement and by failing to provide him with 

appropriate orientation and training for that position. Compliance File (CF), 

Tab 1 at 5, 15-21. Initially, the agency had proposed the appellant’s removal but,

pursuant to the LCSA, reassigned him to a lower-graded position. Initial Appeal 

File (IAF), Tab 6, Subtabs 2a, 2f. The agreement, however, was executed prior to 

the filing of any Board appeal and thus was not entered into the record for 

enforcement purposes. Compare id., Subtab 2a, with IAF, Tab 1. Soon 

thereafter, the appellant sought to vacate the LCSA through the Board’s appeal 

process, arguing that he entered into the agreement under duress. IAF, Tab 1; 

Lumpkins v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-13-

0297-I-1, Final Order at 2 (May 1, 2014). The administrative judge found that he 

had voluntarily entered into the LCSA and dismissed the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. Lumpkins v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket 

No. AT-0752-13-0297-I-2, Final Order at 4 (Jan. 9, 2015) (hereinafter 

Lumpkins II). On review, the Board affirmed the initial decision. Id. at 8. The 
3

appellant now seeks to enforce the LCSA. CF, Tab 1. The administrative judge 

dismissed this petition for enforcement based on lack of jurisdiction because he 

found that the appellant had never established the Board’s jurisdiction over the 

underlying appeal. CF, Tab 8, Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 1-3.

¶3 On review, the appellant argues that the agency breached the LCSA by 

failing to “provide the reasonable training and orientation in order for the 

appellant to perform the job duties as prescribed in the position description” for 

the position to which he was reassigned. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. 

The appellant also argues that the Board should consider this “new complaint . . . 

without a preconceived notion.” Id. He further contends that the agency can 

“breach the contract without repercussion,” whereas his own breach would have 

led to his removal. Id.

¶4 We have reviewed the appellant’s arguments. The administrative judge, 

however, properly dismissed this petition for lack of jurisdiction. CID at 1, 3. 

The administrative judge explained that the appellant offered no evidence and 

argument addressing the jurisdictional issue in response to his order to show 

cause, and that the Board may enforce a settlement agreement only when that 

agreement has been entered into the record for enforcement purposes. CID at 2 

(citing Chapman v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 67 M.S.P.R. 246, 249 (1995)). In 

addition, this petition for enforcement arose after the Board declined to find 

jurisdiction over the underlying appeal. Lumpkins II at 8. As a result, the only 

proper action the administrative judge could have taken was to dismiss the 

petition for enforcement for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hunt v. Office of 

Personnel Management, 114 M.S.P.R. 590, ¶¶ 5-6 (2010). Accordingly, we 

affirm the initial decision.
4

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S.

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 

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 an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website 

at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono 

representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal 

Circuit. 
5

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.

______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board