NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3182 

JAY K. RATHBUN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

 Respondent. 

Jay K. Rathbun, of Phoenix, Arizona, pro se. 

Jane C. Dempsey, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

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

brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, 

Director, and Mark A. Melnick, Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3182 

JAY K. RATHBUN, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

 Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

in DE3443070150-I-1 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: July 11, 2008 

 __________________________ 

Before LINN, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

Jay K. Rathbun seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board ("Board") dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. Rathbun v. Dep't of 

Veterans Affairs, No. DE3443070150-I-1 (Jan. 29, 2007). We affirm. 

I 

Rathbun was employed as a GS-180-13 Clinical Psychologist with the 

Department of Veterans Affairs ("agency") from October 2003 until December 2006. 
Late in 2006, the agency proposed to remove Rathbun on the charge that he lacked the 

educational credentials required for his position. The required credentials included a 

doctoral degree from an accredited college or university whose curriculum in 

psychology is approved by the American Psychological Association ("APA"). When the 

agency realized that Rathbun's doctoral degree was not from a college or university 

whose curriculum in psychology was so approved, it proposed his removal. Rathbun 

responded to the proposed removal arguing that the quality of his education 

demonstrated that the agency should treat his degree as an equivalent to an APA 

approved curriculum degree. Rathbun conceded that his doctorate degree lacks the 

necessary APA accreditation. The agency rejected his equivalency argument and set 

his removal date as December 10, 2006. On December 4, 2006, Rathbun requested in 

writing that he be changed in position to Social Worker at a lower GS-0185-12 grade. 

The agency accepted his request and changed his position and grade. On January 5, 

2007, Rathbun filed his appeal with the Board, arguing that he had been involuntarily 

demoted. He sought a hearing, reinstatement in his old position at the higher grade and 

back pay. 

II 

Rathbun's appeal to the Board and now to this court involves his voluntary 

demotion to the position of Social Worker at the lower GS grade. A request for 

reassignment to a lower grade, like a decision to retire or resign, is presumed to be 

voluntary. Christie v. United States, 518 F.2d 584, 587 (Ct. Cl. 1975). The board does 

not have jurisdiction over voluntary actions, because voluntary actions are not adverse 

2008-3182 2 
actions for purposes of board jurisdiction. Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 

1322, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc).

A person in Rathbun's position can rebut the presumption of voluntariness that 

arose from his request for and acceptance of the lower position. To do so, Rathbun 

would have to show that his otherwise voluntary action arose from his reasonable 

reliance on the agency's misinformation or the agency's failure to provide him with 

adequate information upon which to make his choice. Covington v. Dep't of Health and 

Human Servs., 750 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When a person cannot overcome 

the presumption of voluntariness, he is left in the situation where he had a choice. He 

could have fought the proposed removal, or he could have avoided it as he did by his 

voluntary action. This dilemma is not new. "Merely because plaintiff was faced with an 

inherently unpleasant situation in that her choice was arguably limited to two unpleasant 

alternatives does not obviate the voluntariness of her resignation." Christie, 518 F.2d at 

587-88. 

 Rathbun has made no showing that the agency misled him, nor that the agency 

was derelict in supplying him with the information he needed to make his choice. It is 

uncontested that Rathbun's doctoral degree lacks the necessary APA seal of approval. 

He was afforded ample opportunity to make his equivalency argument. The agency is 

entitled to select the job credential requirements it wishes, and its choice entails no 

appealable adverse action. The efficiency of the service is clearly advanced by 

employment of personnel who meet hiring requirements. That the agency allowed 

Rathbun to work in the higher grade for some time does not estop it from enforcing the 

hiring prerequisites when Rathbun's deficiency comes to its attention. 

2008-3182 3 
2008-3182 4 

III 

For the reasons just stated above, the administrative judge assigned to 

Rathbun's case held that Rathbun's voluntary act of self-demotion ousted the Board's 

jurisdiction over his complaint. When the full Board denied Rathbun's petition for review 

of the adverse decision of the administrative judge, the initial decision became the final 

decision of the Board. Rathbun then timely sought review in this court. 

IV 

We must affirm the final decision of the Board unless we determine that it is 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. 

5 U.S.C. § 5503(c). There are no facts in dispute in this case. The law is clear that 

voluntary acts do not vest the board with jurisdiction. Rathbun has failed to show that 

his demotion was involuntary. We perceive no error in the Board's final decision, and 

we therefore affirm. 

No costs.