UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

JAMES P. NEITZEL,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-3443-14-0897-I-1

DATE: July 2, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

James P. Neitzel, APO, AE, pro se.

Chandra Ramey Postma, APO, AE, 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 initial decision, which

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal of a change in duty station.

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 regulation or the erroneous application of 

 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

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. § 1201.115(b). 

¶2 Effective September 20, 2012, the agency changed the appellant’s duty 

station because his former duty station was being shut down. Initial Appeal File 

(IAF), Tab 1 at 7. He did not actually report to the new duty station until fiscal 

year 2014 because he stayed behind to assist with the closure of the former

facility. IAF, Tab 1 at 9-10, Tab 6 at 7. He thereafter filed an appeal challenging 

his reassignment and certain relocation benefits to which he believed he was 

entitled. After affording the appellant notice of his burden of establishing 

jurisdiction and providing the parties an opportunity to respond, IAF, Tab 2 

at 2-3, Tabs 4-8, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction, Initial Decision at 1-2.

¶3 It is well settled that the Board lacks jurisdiction over reassignments that do 

not involve a reduction in pay or grade. See Lopez v. Department of the Navy, 

108 M.S.P.R. 384, ¶ 18 (2008). According to the Standard Form 50 documenting 

the reassignment, the action did not involve either a reduction in pay or a 

reduction in grade, and the appellant did not allege otherwise. IAF, Tab 6 at 20; 

see IAF, Tabs 1, 4-5, 8. While he asserted that the agency’s action violated its 

internal regulations, the copy of the regulations that he provided apply to soldiers, 

not civilian employees, and so they do not apply to the appellant. IAF, Tab 4 
3

at 28-33. He also provided a copy of agency regulations pertaining to permanent 

change in duty station benefits. IAF, Tab 5. Even assuming that the agency 

violated its regulations, the Board’s jurisdiction is defined by statute and 

regulation and does not extend to reviewing agency compliance with its internal 

regulations unless the Board already has jurisdiction over the case for some other 

reason, which is not the case here.

¶4 On review, the appellant states that the agency involuntarily subjected him 

to a change of duty station, and he alleges that the administrative judge failed to 

identify all material issues of fact and law, although he does not state which 

issues the administrative judge missed. Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 4. 

However, he has identified no statute or regulation that grants the Board 

jurisdiction either over reassignments, involuntary or otherwise, that do not also 

involve a reduction in pay and/or grade, or over agency denials of relocation 

benefits. Therefore, we find that the administrative judge correctly dismissed the 

appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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 
4

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 

United States 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 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