N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
CHRISTOPHER R. CHIN

- YOUNG, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1588

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC

- 0752

- 11

- 0394 -I- 1.

______________________
Decided: November 9 , 2023

______________________
C HRISTOPHER C HIN -Y OUNG , Tallahassee, FL, pro se.

Y

ARIV S. P IERCE , Commercial Litigation Branch, CivilDivision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON , S TEVEN J OHN G ILLINGHAM , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY ; P ATRICK L. G ARY , Civilian Personnel Litigation Branch, Litigation Division, United States Army Legal Services Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA.

______________________ Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2023CHIN

- YOUNG v. ARMY 2

Before D YK , S CHALL , and S TARK , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Christopher Chin

- Young (petitioner) , appearing pro se, petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB or Board) final decision dismissing the case as settled. We affirm

. B ACKGROUND On January 18, 2011, the Department of the Army removed petitioner from his position with the U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) as a Supervisory Program Analyst

. P etitioner appealed through his then

- counsel, Robert Waldeck , to the MSPB. 1 Shortly thereafter

, Mr. Waldeck withdrew as petitioner’s counsel

, and petitioner informed the counsel for the Army that he retained new counsel. Th e new counsel was identified to be James Shoemaker. Mr. Shoemaker submitted a Designation of Representative form , which was not signed by petitioner, i ndicating that he was representing petitioner. Mr. Shoemaker appeared before the Board and arranged a settlement agreement to resolve petitioner’s claims. The settlement agreement was signed by Mr. Shoemaker and petitioner. A Board administrative judge approved the settl e ment and dismissed the appeal on May 19, 2011

. On September 6, 2011, p etitioner filed a peti tion to enforce the settlement agreement with the Board

, assertingthat the Army failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by failing to rescind or expunge certain entries from petitioner’s record and providing improper

1 Petitioner contends this is not correct and that Mr. Waldeck was retained only for a different c ase

. Whether Robert Waldeck was retained or not makes no difference to the outcome of this case. Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2023CHIN

- YOUNG v. ARMY 3

references to managers in other federal agencies, preventing petitioner from being hi red

. On November 29, 2011, Mr. Shoemaker filed a modified settlement agreement, signed by petitioner, Mr. Shoemaker, and repre sentatives for the Department of the Army, with the administrative judge. S.A. 127

– 129. On November 30, 2011, the administrativ e judge dismissed the peti tion as settle d . S.A. 130

–34. On February 7, 2012, Mr. Shoemaker withdrew as petitioner’s counsel. S.A. 136

– 39. On August 31, 2017, petitioner, pro se, filed a petition for review of the administrative judge’s May 19, 2011
, decision that dismissed the case as settled. Petitioner alleged newly discovered evidence i n the form of an affidavit from Mr. Shoemaker, which stated that Mr. Shoemaker was not designated as petitioner’s represent ative in the case. Petitioner referred to the d esignation of r epresentative form submitted to the MSPB in March of 2011, which lacked petitioner’s signature. B ecause the designation of representative form was not signed by petitioner, petitioner contend ed that Mr. Shoemaker was not petitioner’s designated representative and was not authorized to enter into the settlement agreement nor the modified settlement agreement

. Petitioner argues that Mr. Shoemaker “was without any authority to access the re c ord, submit variousdocuments, and negotiate a settlement at [petitioner’s] expense.” S.A. 252.
The Board denied petitioner’s petition for review and affirmed the initial decision. S.A. 2. Whi le the Board acknowledged that petitioner never signed the designation of representative form, the Board found Mr. Shoemaker ’s actions “bore the indicia of authority” because petitioner failed to indicate otherwi se and Mr. Shoemaker engaged inactivities such as “discovery, fil[ing] prehearing submissions, participat[ing] in a prehearing conference , enter[ing]into stipulations, participat[ing] in settlement negotiations, and sign[ing] the settlement on [petitioner’s] behalf.” S.A. 2

– 3. The Board further determined that even if Mr. Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2023CHIN

- YOUNG v. ARMY 4

Shoemaker lacked settlement aut hority, the settlement agreement was still valid because petitioner signed it himself. S.A. 3.
Petitioner petitions for review of the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703.

D ISCUSSION

I
Petitioner argues that Mr. Shoemaker did n ot have authority to enter into the settlement agreement under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.31(a). We disagree. We do not find any procedural defect under section 1201.31(a). That section provides “[a] party to an appeal may be represented in any matter related to the appeal.Parties may designate a representative, revoke such a designation, and change such a designation in a signed submission, submitted as a pleading.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.31 (a)

. Petitioner contends that this regulation requires a signed submission in order for a designation to take effect. The Department of the Army contends that the regulation does not require a signed submission because it uses the word “may” instead of “shall.”

We agree with the Board that petitioner’s failure to sign the designation of representative form does not invalidate the settlement agreement or the modified settlement

a greement. Mr. Shoemaker act ed with apparent authority

as petitioner’s representative, and petitioner previously admitted that he hired Mr. Shoemaker. S.A. 241 (noting he retained Mr. Shoemaker’s firm ). E ven if Mr. Shoemaker lacked the authority to execute the settlement agreement and the modified settlement agreement, the petitioner also signed those documents.

The Board did not err in concluding that the settlement agreements were not rendered ineffective because petitioner did not sign the designation of representative form. Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2023CHIN

- YOUNG v. ARMY 5

II

Petitioner also challenges the validity of the settlement agreements because the Board’s and Army’s actions “were not in good faith for settlement and not freely entered ,” and the administrative judge allegedl y pressured the petitioner and Mr. Shoemaker to sign the agreement

. Petitioner’s Br

. 12. Petitioner has challenged the enforceability of the settlement agreement and modified settlement agreement on similar grounds in other proceedings before the Board and in federal district courts. See e.g.

, Chin

- Young v. Dep ’ t of Army

, No. DC

- 0752

- 11

- 0394 -C-1

, 2013 WL 9658987, at *3

– 5 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 14, 2013) ; Chin

- Young v. McHugh

, No. RWT 13

- CV

- 3772
, 2015 WL 1522880, at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2015), aff ’ d sub nom. Chin

- Young v. Rowell , 623 F. App ’ x 121 (4th Cir. 2015) ; Chin

- Young v. United States

, No. 1:16

- CV

- 1454
, 2017 WL 2960532, at *2 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2017), aff ’ d in part, rev ’ d in part and remanded , 774 F. App ’ x 106 (4th Cir. 2019)

. However, t here is no indication that petitioner has adequately raised the se allegations of coercion

, bad faith

, and other procedural issues before the administrative judge in the present case

. These allegations are , at best, made in passing and in a conclusory manner in the petition to the Board.

The Board did not address these allegations in its decision, instea d focusing solely on the issue of whether Mr. Shoemaker had the authority to enter into the settlement agreement

. We understand the Board determined that th ose allegations were not properly raised in t his case

. “Our precedent clearly establishes the impropriety of seeking a reversal of the [B]oard’s decision [approving a settlement agreement] on the basis of ass e rtions never presented to the presiding official or to the [B] oard.” Sargent v. Dep ’ t of Health & Human Servs. , 229 F.3d 1088, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (collecting cases). Because these issues were not Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2023CHIN

- YOUNG v. ARMY 6

properly raised before the administrative judge or the Board, we cannot address them on review

. See id.

We affirm the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 6 Filed: 11/09/2023