UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

CHRISTINE M. HALFACRE,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-0752-12-0626-R-1

DATE: September 5, 2014

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Adria S. Zeldin, Esquire, and Joseph V. Kaplan, Esquire, Washington, 

D.C., for the appellant.

Jennifer Kessler, Joseph Rieu, and Michael W. Gaches, Esquire, Arlington, 

Virginia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

 

* A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The Board issued a final decision in this appeal on June 13, 2014. 

Halfacre v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-12-

0626-I-1 (I-1), Final Order (June 13, 2014). Thereafter, the parties filed a

settlement agreement executed on July 7, 2014, and a request to reopen the 

appeal, vacate the Board’s June 13, 2014 final decision, and dismiss the 

underlying appeal. MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-12-0626-R-1, Reopening Appeal 

File (RAF), Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we REOPEN the appeal 

under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(e)(1)(B) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118, see Smith v. Social 

Security Administration, 102 M.S.P.R. 167 (2006), VACATE the Board’s final 

decision, and DISMISS the underlying appeal as settled.

¶2 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the 

parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend 

to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See

Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 149 (1988). We find here that 

the parties, in fact, have entered into a settlement agreement, that they 

understand the terms, and that they want the Board to enforce those terms. See

RAF, Tab 1 at 6.

¶3 In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for 

enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful 

on its face, whether the parties freely entered into it, and whether the subject 

matter of this appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction, that is, whether a law, 

rule, or regulation grants the Board the authority to decide such a matter. See

Stewart v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 104, 107 (1997). We find here that 

the agreement is lawful on its face, that the parties freely entered into it, and that 

the subject matter of this appeal—the removal of a full-time nonprobationary 

employee in the federal service—is within the Board’s jurisdiction 

under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-13, 7701. I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 8(4.b). 
3

Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the underlying appeal “with prejudice to 

refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate 

under these circumstances, and we accept the settlement agreement into the 

record for enforcement purposes. 

¶4 This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. 

Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113)

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR

ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS

If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the 

agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by 

promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial 

decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the 

petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not 

been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any 

communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit to review this final decision. 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 your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your 

representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the court 

no later than 60 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose 
4

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 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). You may read 

this law, as well as review the Board’s regulations and other related material, at 

our website, http://www.mspb.gov. 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 your court 

appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of 

attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for 

Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. 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