UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

JAMES B. HILLER,

Appellant,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AR MY,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DC

- 0752

- 14

- 0520

- X

- 1

DATE: May 12, 2023



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Bradley P. Moss , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

Richard Kane , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

FINAL ORDER ¶1 In a June 15, 2018 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge granted, in part, the appellant’s second petition for enforcement of the Board’s

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three

- member Board completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.2

September 30, 2016 final decision mitigating his demotion to a 30

- day suspension. Hiller v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC

- 0752

- 14

- 0520

- C

- 1, Compliance File, Tab 6, Compliance Initial Decision (CID); Hiller v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC

- 0752

- 14

- 0520

- I

- 3, Initial Appeal File, Tab 28, Initial Decision. 3 Specifically, the administrative judge found the agency noncompliant with the Board’s final decision to the extent it failed to produce a legible document showing how it calculated interest on the appellant’s back pay award and ordered the agency to prod uce it. CID at 12. For the reasons discussed below, we now find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the appellant’s second petition for enforcement.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUME NTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE ¶2 In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge informed the agency that, if it decided to take the action ordered, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board a narrative statement and evidence establishing compliance. CID at 13. In addition, he informed both parties that they could file a petition for review of the compliance initial decision if they disagreed with the findings therein. CID

at 13

- 14. Neither party filed any submission with the Clerk of the Board within
the time limit set for th in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114 . As such, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183 (b)

- (c), the administrative judge’s findings of noncompliance became final, and the appellant’s second petition for enforcement was referred to the Board for a final decision on issues of compliance. Hiller v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC

- 0752

- 14

- 0520

- X

- 1 , Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1.

3 Although the agency requested and received an extension of time to file an administrative petition for review of the initial decision, it ultimately did not file o ne. Hiller v. Department of the Army
, MSPB Docket No. DC

- 0752

- 14

- 0520

- I

- 3, Petition for Review File, Tabs 1

- 2. Accordingly, the September 30, 2016 initial decision became the final decision of the Board.3

¶3 On July 25, 2018, the Clerk of the Board issued an acknowledgment order directing the agency to submit evidence showing that it had complied with all actions identified in the compliance initial decision. CRF, Tab 1 at 3. The acknowledgement order informed the appellant that he may respond to the agency’s compliance submission within 20 calendar days of its date of service and that, in the absence of a response, the Board may assume that he was satisfied and dismiss the petition for enforcement. I d. at 3. ¶4 On April 9, 2019, the agency submitted, in relevant part, a legible back pay computation summary report showing that the appellant was entitled to $3,704.01 in interest on his back pay award. CRF, Tab 2 at 6

- 12. The appellant has not
filed a res ponse to the agency’s submission, despite being notified of his opportunity to do so and of the consequences of not responding. Accordingly, we assume he is satisfied with the agency’s compliance. See Baumgartner v. Department of Housing and Urban Develo pment , 111 M.S.P.R. 86 , ¶ 9 (2009). ¶5 In view of the agency’s submission and the appellant’s lack of response, the
Board finds the agency in compliance and dismisses the petition for enforcement. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
section 1201.183(c)(1) ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183 (c)(1)).4

NOTICE TO THE APPELL ANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUES T ATTORNEY FEES AND CO STS You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision on your appeal.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIG HTS 4 You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (a)(1). By statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate forum with which t o file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b). Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most appropriat e for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should immediately review the law applica ble to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum. Please read carefully each of the three main possible choice s of review below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

4 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.5

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general

. As a general rule, an appellant seeking judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(A). If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following add ress: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particu lar 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, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services p rovided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain6

judicial review of this decision

— including a disposition of your discrimination
claims

— by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board
, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
wi th the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court

- appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5 (f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a

. Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

. Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues

. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). You must file any such request with the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision. If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is: Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960 Washington, D.C. 200137

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, N.E. Suite 5SW12G Washington, D.C . 20507
(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8) or other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the
U.S. C ourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(B). If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address:

5 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial r eview of certain whistleblower clai ms by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of MSPB decisions in certa in whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115

- 195, 132 Stat. 1510.8

U .S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relev ance 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, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals f or the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided b y any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. /s/ for Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board