UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

WILLIE R. SANTIAGO,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-0752-21-0084-I-1

DATE: February 29, 2024

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Willie R. Santiago, Pahoa, Hawaii, pro se.

Sara Adibisedeh, Esquire, San Francisco, California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

dismissed his removal appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant

petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision

contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an

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

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 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

The appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in determining that

his start date was November 10, 2018, the date he was converted to a career

position. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3. Rather, he argues, his start

date for purposes of jurisdiction should be either the day his hiring was

announced, July 30, 2018, or the date when he first started in a temporary

position with the agency, August 18, 2018. Id. Without making a determination,

we find that, even using the appellant’s argued start dates, he has failed to

establish jurisdiction over his appeal. 

A U.S. Postal Service employee may file a Board appeal under chapter 75

of Title 5 of the U.S. Code only if he is covered by 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a) or

5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B). See 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(8); Gordon-Cureton v. U.S.

Postal Service, 105 M.S.P.R. 165, ¶ 6 (2007). Thus, as correctly stated by the

administrative judge, to appeal an adverse action under chapter 75, a U.S. Postal

Service employee must meet the following criteria: (1) be a preference eligible, a

management or supervisory employee, or an employee engaged in personnel work

in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity; and (2) have completed

1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions. Initial

Appeal File (IAF), Tab 11, Initial Decision (ID) at 4; Gordon-Cureton,

105 M.S.P.R. 165, ¶ 6.

2
Here, it is undisputed that the appellant is not preference eligible. IAF,

Tab 1 at 1, 6, 27. Furthermore, the appellant was a Sales and Services

Distribution Associate and has not alleged that he was a management or

supervisory employee, or an employee engaged in personnel work in other than a

purely nonconfidential clerical capacity. Id. at 1, 3, 6, 27. Further still, even

using the earliest start date as argued by the appellant, July 30, 2018, he has not

demonstrated that he completed 1 year of current continuous service prior to his

separation on February 6, 2019. Id. at 3, 5. The appellant’s alleged start dates,

argued seemingly in attempt to establish that he was no longer a probationary

employee, do not affect this analysis. Accordingly, we agree with the

administrative judge that the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation

that he was a U.S. Postal Service employee entitled to appeal his removal under

5 U.S.C. chapter 75. ID at 4-5. 

The appellant additionally argues the merits of his separation and asserts

discrimination based on age and ethnic origin. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-9. In the

absence of an otherwise appealable action, the Board lacks jurisdiction to

consider the merits of the appellant’s separation or his claims of discrimination.

See Burton v. Department of the Air Force, 118 M.S.P.R. 210, ¶ 16 (2012)

(recognizing that the Board lacks authority to address the merits of an appeal

without first finding jurisdiction); Hicks v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 M.S.P.R.

232, ¶ 13 (2010) (finding the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider claims of

discrimination absent an otherwise appealable action). The appellant also

submits alleged new evidence on review, further arguing the merits of his

separation and in attempt to establish his argued start date. PFR File, Tab 1

at 11-39. As discussed above, these issues are immaterial to the issue of the

Board’s jurisdiction and thus we decline to consider them on review. See Russo

v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (finding the Board will

not grant a petition for review based on new evidence absent a showing that it is

3
of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial

decision). 

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS2

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By

statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such

review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).

Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most

appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their

jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time

limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you

should contact that forum for more information. 

(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). 

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

2

 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

4
U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit 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, 10, 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.

The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants

that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of

discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination

claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems

Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative

receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be

entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any

5
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding

all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision. 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the

address of the EEOC is: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection

Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s

6
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in

section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or

2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial

review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court

of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 3 The court of appeals must receive your

petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). 

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit 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, 10, 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. The

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

3

 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,

132 Stat. 1510. 

7
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

 

 

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Gina K. Grippando

Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

8