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 dec ision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying her pet ition 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

.DISCUSSI ON I. Ms. Lawson was employed by the Department of the Air Force (“Air Force”) as a Training Technic i an at Dyess Air Force Ba se in T e xas from April of 1993 until h e r resignation in July of 1997. In October of 2000, she filed an applic ation for disabilit y retirement with the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), which was denied as untimely filed. Ms. Lawson appealed OPM’s deni al to the Board and then to this court. We affirmed OPM’s denial. Lawson v. Offi ce 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 retirem ent case and award her early re tirement. Accordingly, she filed a petition for enforcem ent with the Board asking t he Board to “accept appeal to award settlement reached with the Air For c e in October 2000.” The Board issued an “Order to S how Caus e” in which it direct ed 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. Ma y 17, 2005) (“ Order to Show Cause ”). When Ms. Lawson failed to pr oduce a c opy of the settlement agreement, the administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the ca se was as signed iss ued an initial dec i sion 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 Decis i o n ”). In the Initial Dec i sion , the AJ noted that the Air Force acknowledged entering int o 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 not ed

06-3041 2that Ms. Lawson, as the party asserting a breach of a settlement agreement, had the burden of s howing that the Air Forc e had not complied with the agreement. Id. , slip op. at 2. The AJ found that Ms. Lawson did not meet her burden because s h e failed to produce a copy of the settlement agreem ent by the deadline s e t forth in the Order to Show Cause

. Initial Decis i on , slip op. at 3. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1 201.115(d), the Initial Decis i on became the final decis ion of the B oard when the Board denied Ms. Lawson’s petition for review. F i nal Dec i sion , slip op. at 1-2. Ms . Lawson timely appealed the Board’s final decis ion to this court. We hav e jurisdiction to review the final decisio n 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 t he Board erred by failing to c o nsi der this agreement. She als o contends that, during the period of her empl oyment, she was subject to di scrimination and harass m ent and that the Boar d erred by failing t o consider various statutes and regulations that she cited in support of that claim. III. We will uphold a Board decisio n 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 hav ing been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) ( 2000). The decis ion of the Board in this case is none of these. With regard to Ms. Lawson’s c l aim that a settlement agreement between her and the Air Force existed, we find that the B oard properly dismissed her petition when she

06-3041 3failed to provide a copy of the agreement. The Order to Show Cause directed Ms. Lawson to produce a written c opy of the alleged agreement. The Boar d properly dismissed Ms. Lawson’s petition w hen she failed to comply wit h the Order to Show Cause

. See Mendoz a v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir . 1992) (en banc) (“A petitioner who ignores an order of the Admin i strative Judge does s o at his or her peril.”). We must reject Ms. L a wson’s claims t hat she suffered from discrimination and harassment. Aside from the fact that we ha ve no juris d iction to c onsider dis c rimination claims, Austin v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 136 F

. 3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 1998), these claims have no relevance to the iss ue of whether there was a settlement agreement betwee n Ms. Lawson and the Air Force. In any ev ent, under any circumstance it would be improper for us to address these claims be cause Ms. Lawson did not rais e them first before the Board. Se e Bosley v

. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A party in an MSPB proceeding m u st 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 is sue in the administr ative proceeding or raises an i ssue for the first time in a petition for review by the full Boar d, this court will not consider the issue.”). For the foregoing reasons, the fi nal decis ion of the Board is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs.

06-3041 4