NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition 

is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

06-3041 

MELANIE K. LAWSON, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

 Respondent. 

 _______________________ 

 

 DECIDED: April 7, 2006 

 _______________________ 

Before RADER, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION 

 Melanie K. Lawson petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems 

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

agreement. Lawson v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. DA1221010724-C-1, slip op. 

(M.S.P.B. Sept. 13, 2005) (“Final Decision”). We affirm. 
DISCUSSION 

I. 

Ms. Lawson was employed by the Department of the Air Force (“Air Force”) as a 

Training Technician at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas from April of 1993 until her 

resignation in July of 1997. In October of 2000, she filed an application for disability

retirement with the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), which was denied as 

untimely filed. Ms. Lawson appealed OPM’s denial to the Board and then to this court. 

We affirmed OPM’s denial. Lawson v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 55 Fed. Appx. 909, 910 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). 

In the present enforcement action, Ms. Lawson alleges that the Air Force agreed 

to settle her disability retirement case and award her early retirement. Accordingly, she 

filed a petition for enforcement with the Board asking the Board to “accept appeal to 

award settlement reached with the Air Force in October 2000.” The Board issued an 

“Order to Show Cause” in which it directed Ms. Lawson to produce a copy of the alleged 

settlement agreement by May 27, 2005. Lawson v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. 

DA1221010724-C-1, slip op. at 1 (M.S.P.B. May 17, 2005) (“Order to Show Cause”). 

When Ms. Lawson failed to produce a copy of the settlement agreement, the 

administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the case was assigned issued an initial decision 

denying Ms. Lawson’s petition for enforcement. Lawson v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. 

DA122010724-C-1, slip op. at 1 (M.S.P.B. May 31, 2005) (“Initial Decision”). In the

Initial Decision, the AJ noted that the Air Force acknowledged entering into settlement 

negotiations with Ms. Lawson during the course of her earlier action for disability

retirement, but denied reaching an agreement with Ms. Lawson. Id. The AJ also noted 

06-3041 2
that Ms. Lawson, as the party asserting a breach of a settlement agreement, had the 

burden of showing that the Air Force had not complied with the agreement. Id., slip op.

at 2. The AJ found that Ms. Lawson did not meet her burden because she failed to 

produce a copy of the settlement agreement by the deadline set forth in the Order to 

Show Cause. Initial Decision, slip op. at 3. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d), the Initial 

Decision became the final decision of the Board when the Board denied Ms. Lawson’s

petition for review. Final Decision, slip op. at 1-2. Ms. Lawson timely appealed the 

Board’s final decision to this court. We have jurisdiction to review the final decision of

the Board pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2000). 

II. 

On appeal, Ms. Lawson contends that the Air Force agreed to settle her claim for

$17 million and that the Board erred by failing to consider this agreement. She also

contends that, during the period of her employment, she was subject to discrimination 

and harassment and that the Board erred by failing to consider various statutes and 

regulations that she cited in support of that claim. 

III. 

We will uphold a Board decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures

required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by

substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000). The decision of the Board in this 

case is none of these. 

With regard to Ms. Lawson’s claim that a settlement agreement between her and 

the Air Force existed, we find that the Board properly dismissed her petition when she 

06-3041 3
failed to provide a copy of the agreement. The Order to Show Cause directed Ms.

Lawson to produce a written copy of the alleged agreement. The Board properly

dismissed Ms. Lawson’s petition when she failed to comply with the Order to Show 

Cause. See Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en 

banc) (“A petitioner who ignores an order of the Administrative Judge does so at his or

her peril.”). 

We must reject Ms. Lawson’s claims that she suffered from discrimination and 

harassment. Aside from the fact that we have no jurisdiction to consider discrimination 

claims, Austin v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 136 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 1998), these claims 

have no relevance to the issue of whether there was a settlement agreement between 

Ms. Lawson and the Air Force. In any event, under any circumstance it would be 

improper for us to address these claims because Ms. Lawson did not raise them first 

before the Board. See Bosley v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir.

1998) (“A party in an MSPB proceeding must raise an issue before the administrative 

judge if the issue is to be preserved for review in this court. Thus, if the party fails to 

raise an issue in the administrative proceeding or raises an issue for the first time in a 

petition for review by the full Board, this court will not consider the issue.”). 

For the foregoing reasons, the final decision of the Board is affirmed. 

Each party shall bear its own costs. 

06-3041 4