NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JERRIDENE H. MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3089

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-11-0881-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 16, 2014

______________________ 

JERRIDENE H. MOORE, of Red Oak, Georgia, pro se. 

STEPHEN FUNG, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, 

for respondent. With him on the brief was BRYAN G.

POLISUK, General Counsel. 

______________________ 

Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
2 MOORE v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

After multiple appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board, Jerridene H. Moore sought review of a decision by a board administrative judge dismissing her 

appeal. Her petition for review to the full board, however, 

was filed almost 18 months after that decision became 

final. The Board will excuse untimely filings if a petitioner establishes good cause for the delay. Because the 

Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that 

Ms. Moore did not show good cause for the delay in filing 

her appeal, we affirm.

I 

On April 7, 2010, the Social Security Administration 

issued a decision removing Ms. Moore from service. Two 

days later, a union representative filed a grievance on 

Ms. Moore’s behalf under the Administration’s negotiated 

grievance procedure. According to Ms. Moore, the Administration issued a decision under that procedure on April 

19, 2010.

In May 2010, Ms. Moore appealed to the Board. An 

administrative judge issued an initial decision, finding 

that, under 5 U.S.C. § 7121(e)(1), Ms. Moore’s earlier 

grievance disqualified her from appealing to the Board. 

That initial decision became final in October 2010, after

Ms. Moore failed to file a timely petition for review.

In March 2011, Ms. Moore appealed to the Board

again. An administrative judge dismissed Ms. Moore’s 

appeal in June 2011, finding that she was collaterally 

estopped from relitigating the appeal of her removal. 

This dismissal became final in July 2011, after Ms. Moore 

again failed to file a timely petition for review.

In August 2011, Ms. Moore appealed to the Board for 

a third time. The Board found that it was unclear whether Ms. Moore was appealing her April 7, 2010 removal or 

an arbitrator’s decision from July 2011 that may have 
MOORE v. MSPB 3

included discrimination claims. Accordingly, the Board 

ordered the parties to address whether the Board had 

jurisdiction over Ms. Moore’s appeal. The Board mailed 

its order to Ms. Moore’s address of record on October 18, 

2011. On October 26, 2011, she responded, requesting 

“review based on the discrimination that was not addressed in the arbitration hearings.” App. of Resp’t 77.

On November 10, 2011, an administrative judge dismissed Ms. Moore’s third appeal under the doctrine of 

collateral estoppel, finding the appeal apparently identical to her two prior appeals. The Board mailed its decision to Ms. Moore’s address of record. More than 18

months later, on June 11, 2013, Ms. Moore petitioned for 

review. After receiving notice that her petition was 

untimely, Ms. Moore asked the Board to set aside the 

time limit for filing her petition. Her motion alleged that 

she first received the Board’s November 10, 2011 decision 

on May 29, 2013, when she went to a Regional Office to 

check on the progress of her case. She argued that the 

Board should waive the time limit because she was diagnosed with bronchitis in June 2013, she had been “somewhat homeless,” and she had “countless problems” 

receiving her mail. App. of Resp’t 36.

In a final order, the Board denied Ms. Moore’s motion. 

As required by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(3), the Board presumed that Ms. Moore timely received the November 10, 

2011 decision. Finding that Ms. Moore failed to rebut this 

presumption and that her failure to monitor her case 

amounted to negligence, the Board dismissed her appeal 

as untimely. The Board also ordered that Ms. Moore’s

request for review of an arbitration decision based on 

discrimination be forwarded to the clerk of the Board for 

docketing.

Ms. Moore appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
4 MOORE v. MSPB

II

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with law; obtained without procedures 

required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; 

or unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(c). 

Petitioners must request review of an initial Board 

decision within 35 days after the decision issues, or within 

30 days of receipt of the decision if received more than five

days after issuance. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). 

The Board presumes that properly addressed correspondence sent to the petitioner’s address of record was

duly delivered to the addressee. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(3). 

A petitioner “may not avoid service of a properly addressed and mailed decision by intentional or negligent 

conduct which frustrates actual service.” Id. The Board 

may excuse late filings, however, if a party shows good 

cause. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). Considerations bearing on 

whether or not there is good cause for an untimely filing 

include the length of the delay, whether the appellant was 

notified of the time limit, whether circumstances existed 

beyond the appellant’s control that affected her ability to 

comply with the deadline, whether the appellant was 

negligent regarding the delay, and whether the appellant 

suffered any “unavoidable casualty or misfortune” that 

may have prevented timely filing. Zamot v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 332 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing 

Walls v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 29 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. 

Cir. 1994)).

The Board found that Ms. Moore’s bronchitis—

diagnosed almost 18 months after the November 10, 2011 

decision became final—could not excuse her failure to file 

a timely petition. The Board also found that Ms. Moore 

had not changed her address of record and, as required, 
MOORE v. MSPB 5

presumed that its initial decision was duly delivered to 

her. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(3). 

Furthermore, the Board found Ms. Moore had significant experience with Board procedures. Indeed, 

Ms. Moore filed two prior appeals, and she responded to 

Board inquiries regarding the appeals that were sent to 

her address of record. On at least two occasions in 2011, 

Ms. Moore responded within days of receiving Board 

inquiries. Additionally, Ms. Moore stated that she knew 

of problems receiving mail at the address of record. 

Under our deferential standard of review, we cannot 

conclude that the Board erred in dismissing Ms. Moore’s 

appeal.

Ms. Moore alleges that the Board failed to consider 

“discrimination” and submits evidence of a serious injury 

in February 2011. But Ms. Moore’s discrimination claims 

are not before us because the Board ordered its clerk to 

docket these allegations separately from the allegations at 

issue in this appeal. And we cannot address evidence of 

Ms. Moore’s alleged February 2011 injury, as that evidence was not part of the record before the Board. See 

Oshiver v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 896 F.2d 540, 542 (Fed.

Cir. 1990).

We have considered Ms. Moore’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED

No costs.