NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2006-3338 

JENEICE HUNTER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

Respondent. 

Jeneice Hunter, of Hampton, Virginia, pro se. 

Kenneth S. Kessler, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on 

the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, 

and Mark A. Melnick, Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board 
Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2006-3338 

JENEICE HUNTER, 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

Respondent. 

__________________________

 DECIDED: February 12, 2007 

__________________________

Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION 

Jeneice Hunter petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (“Board”) that denied her petition for enforcement of a settlement 

agreement between Ms. Hunter and the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"). Hunter 

v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, DC-0752-05-0322-C-2 (MSPB Jun. 13, 2006). We affirm. 

DISCUSSION 

I. 

On March 3, 2003, Ms. Hunter filed an appeal with the Board challenging the 

VA’s action separating her from Federal Service. On May 12, 2005, the parties 

resolved the action through a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement 
provided, inter alia, that the VA would offer Ms. Hunter another position within the 

agency contingent upon the receipt of medical documentation indicating her ability to

perform the duties of the position. Settlement Agreement at 1. If Ms. Hunter could not

obtain such medical documentation, the parties agreed that she would apply for

disability retirement. In such case, the VA would not contest her application and would

assist her, upon request, with the processing of her application. Settlement Agreement

at 2. 

On September 14, 2005, Ms. Hunter filed a first petition for enforcement of the 

settlement agreement alleging that she had filed a disability retirement application with 

the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) and had not received a response. She 

also alleged that the VA had not adequately assisted her in the processing of the 

application. The Administrative Judge (“AJ”) to whom the matter was assigned denied 

the first petition for enforcement based on a determination that Ms. Hunter failed to 

establish a breach of the settlement agreement by the VA. That decision is not before 

us.

On January 27, 2006, Ms. Hunter filed a second petition for enforcement of the 

settlement agreement. In her second petition, Ms. Hunter alleged that the VA had not 

provided her another position within the VA and that her application for disability 

retirement had been denied. The VA responded to the petition for enforcement by

asserting that, following execution of the settlement agreement, the parties had 

numerous communications regarding the VA’s job offer; that Ms. Hunter’s physician did 

not ultimately give Ms. Hunter the requisite medical clearance required by the 

settlement agreement to appoint her to another position; and that the VA then assisted 

2006-3338 2
Ms. Hunter with her disability retirement application and submitted it to OPM. Ms. 

Hunter did not submit a response to the VA’s submission. 

In an initial decision, the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) held that Ms. Hunter failed 

to show noncompliance by the VA with the terms of the settlement agreement and 

dismissed her petition for enforcement. Hunter v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, DC-0752-

05-0322-C-2 (MSPB March 15, 2006) (“Initial Decision”). The Initial Decision, became 

the final decision of the Board on June 13, 2006 when the Board denied Ms. Hunter’s 

petition for review for failure to meet the criteria for review set forth at 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.115(d). This appeal follows. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). 

II. 

Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. 

Specifically, we must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is found to be arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained 

without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or

unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Kewley v. Dep’t of Health & 

Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

We see no error in the Board’s decision in this case. The AJ denied Ms. Hunter’s 

petition for enforcement after finding that Ms. Hunter’s physician had failed to provide 

her with medical clearance to return to duty and that the VA had assisted Ms. Hunter 

with her disability retirement application. Initial Decision at 3. On appeal, Ms. Hunter 

does not contest these findings. Rather, she argues that she has done nothing wrong. 

2006-3338 3
The AJ properly determined that the VA’s actions fully complied with the terms of

the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement imposed two alternative 

obligations on the VA. The VA was obligated to offer Ms. Hunter another position within 

the agency contingent upon the receipt of medical documentation indicating her ability

to perform the duties of the position. In the alternative, if Ms. Hunter was unable to

receive medical documentation indicating her ability to perform the duties of the 

position, the VA was obligated to assist Ms. Hunter with her disability application, an

obligation that the AJ found was met. Because Ms. Hunter did not receive medical 

clearance from her physician, the VA was obligated to assist her with her disability 

application. Nothing in the settlement agreement guaranteed that OPM would grant Ms. 

Hunter disability retirement. OPM is a separate federal entity over which the VA has no 

control. It is OPM, not the VA, who makes disability retirement decisions. Because the

VA did assist Ms. Hunter with her disability application, the AJ properly held that Ms. 

Hunter failed to show noncompliance by the VA with the settlement agreement. 

For the foregoing reasons, the final decision of the Board dismissing Ms. 

Hunter’s petition for enforcement is affirmed. 

2006-3338 4