UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

MARIA THERESA BOUCHER,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-0752-10-0453-X-1

DATE: August 22, 2014

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Maria Theresa Boucher, Huntsville, Alabama, pro se.

James M. Allen, Esquire, Memphis, Tennessee, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision finding the 

agency in noncompliance with the March 22, 2013 initial decision. For the 

reasons discussed below, we find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the 

petition for enforcement. 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE

¶2 On November 15, 2012, the Board issued its final decision mitigating the 

appellant’s removal to a 90-day suspension. Boucher v. U.S. Postal Service, 

118 M.S.P.R. 640 (2012). The Board ordered the agency to pay the appellant the 

correct amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the 

Back Pay Act and/or Postal Service Regulations, as appropriate. Id. at 13. 

¶3 The appellant filed a petition for enforcement on January 22, 2013, 

contending that the agency failed to pay her back pay, interest, and other benefits 

under the Back Pay Act and/or Postal Service Regulations, as appropriate. MSPB 

Docket No. AT-0752-10-0453-C-2, Compliance File (CF), Tab 1 at 1. On 

March 22, 2013, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision 

finding that the agency had failed to pay the appropriate amount of back pay and 

interest, and therefore was in noncompliance. CF, Initial Decision, Tab 4 at 2. 

¶4 When the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted or not sustainable, it 

orders that the appellant be placed, as nearly as possible, in the situation she 

would have been had the wrongful personnel action not occurred. House v. 

Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 530, ¶ 9 (2005). The agency bears the 

burden to prove its compliance with a Board order. An agency’s assertions of 

compliance must include a clear explanation of its compliance actions supported 

by documentary evidence. Vaughan v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 

319, ¶ 5 (2011). The appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence of compliance by 

making “specific, nonconclusory, and supported assertions of continued 

noncompliance.” Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 325, 

¶ 5 (2010). 

¶5 On July 5, 2013, and July 9, 2013, the agency filed evidence of compliance, 

including calculations explaining the appellant’s back pay and interest, and a 

cancelled check representing payment of interest. MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-

10-0453-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tabs 3 and 4. The appellant 

did not respond, although the Board advised her that she could respond to the 
3

agency’s evidence of compliance within 20 calendar days of the date of service of 

the agency’s submissions. CRF, Tab 2 at 3-4. 

¶6 Because the appellant did not respond to the agency’s evidence of 

compliance, nor dispute that she received appropriate back pay and interest, we 

assume she is satisfied, find the agency in compliance, and dismiss 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)). 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

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 TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 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 the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 
4

2012). If you choose 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) (as rev. eff.

Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the

United States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm. 

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