NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3229 NICHOLAS S. TROBOVIC, Petitioner,

v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

Nicholas S. Trobovic , of Berwyn, Pennsylvania, pro se. Joan M. Stentiford-Ulmer , Trial Attorney, Commercia l Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Departm ent of Justice, of Washingt on, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Steven J. Gillingham , Assistant Director. Of counsel on t he brief was F. Allen Phaup , Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, General Law Division, Unit ed States General Services Division, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3229

NICHOLAS S. TROBOVIC, Petitioner,

v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in consolidated cases

NY0752050347-M-1; NY0752070003- I-2; NY0353070004-I-2; NY3443070005-I-2; and NY0752070202-I-1.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: April 16, 2009

__________________________ Before MAYER, PLAGER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Nicholas S. Trobovic appeals the final or der of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his petitions for review of the initial decisions that dismissed, as withdrawn or settled pursuant to a comp rehensive settlement agreement, his five appeals of allegedly im proper actions taken by the Gener al Services Administration (“GSA”). Trobovic v. Gen. Serv. Admin. , Nos. NY-0752-05-0347-M-1, NY-0752-07- 0003-I-2, NY-0353-07-0004-I-2, NY-3443-07-0005-I-2, NY- 0752-07-0202-I-1 (M.S.P.B.Mar. 5, 2008). The board concluded that there was no new, previously unavailable evidence and that the administr ative judge made no error in la w or regulation affecting the outcome. Id. ; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). We affirm

.Trobovic was employed by the GSA as a building management specialist, GS1157-11. On June 15, 2005, he suffered a back in jury that was ultimately accepted as compensable by the Department of Labor’s Office of Worker s’ Compensation Programs. One year later, Trobovic applied for a budget analyst position, which he was denied. He brought five appeals before t he board in connection with his GSA employment, claiming constructive suspensions and violations of hi s restoration to duty rights as a medicallydisqualified employee. In the course of his appeals to the board, and before any decisions on the merits were reached, Tr obovic agreed to participate in the board’s Mediation Appeals Process. On August 1, 2007, the parties signed and executed a comprehensive settlement agreement involv ing all issues in his pending appeals. Trobovic agreed to withdraw, with prejudice, all of his appea ls and neither contest his removal from service for unavailability for wo rk, nor seek future employment with the agency; the GSA agreed, inter alia , to assist him with his a pplication for disability retirement. Within 30 days of executing the settl ement agreement, Trobovic notified the board that he rescinded the agr eement, and proceeded to refile his withdrawn appeals. He further averred that the settlement agreement was invali d. Specifically, Trobovic alleged that (1) both parties mistakenly believed that he would qualify for disability retirement, (2) he was entit led to a 30-day review per iod before accepting the agreement, (3) Asperger’s Syndrome prev ented him from under standing the legal

2008-3229 2significance of signing the settlement agreement, and (4) the agency fraudulently induced him to sign the agreement. The board considered and rejected each of his arguments and concluded that th e settlement agreement was lawful on its face, freely entered into, and understood by the parties. The board found that Trobovic was assisted by a union representative throughout the mediation negotia tions and that his medical condition did not render him in capable of understan ding the meaning and legally binding nature of the settlement agreement. Further, contrary to Trobovic’s assertion, there is no pr ovision for a 30-day review period during which an already executed settlement agreement can be unilatera lly rescinded. Accordingly, the board upheld the validity of the se ttlement agreement, and based on its terms found that Trobovic withdrew his appeals, t hereby divesting the board of jurisdiction to address the merits of his claims

. We must affirm the final decision of t he board unless we conc lude that it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise no t in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The plai n language of the se ttlement agreement rebuts Trobovic’s arguments with respect to mutual mistak e, fraud, and coerci on, and supports the board’s conclusion that the bilateral agr eement was voluntarily executed. The settlement agreement is draft ed in plain English and stat es that Trobovic agreed to withdraw his appeals and abstain from seeking money damages or reemployment with the agency; in exchange, the agency agreed to, inter alia , expunge certain documents from his official personnel file, refrai n from contesting his pending Workers’ Compensation claims, and assist him with the filing of his disability retirement application. Nowhere in the agreement does GSA guarant ee that his disability

2008-3229 32008-3229 4 retirement application will be approved. The agreement also contains a merger clause and confirms that Trobovic (1) read and understood the entire document, (2) had adequate time to reflect upon the terms of the agreement in co nsultation with his representative, and (3) signed it free from coercion wh ile agreeing not to claim otherwise in the future. With respect to Trobovic’s argument that Asperger’s Syndr ome rendered him incompetent to contract, the board properly c onsidered and weighed th e credibility of his testimony and psychiatric evaluations, and c oncluded he was competent to contract. Substantial evidence supports the board’s conclusion. Because the settlement agreement became effective and binding when formed on Augu st 1, 2007, the board correctly concluded that Trobov ic voluntarily withdrew his appeals, with prejudice, and prospectively agreed not to seek reemployment with the agency. The board was therefore divested of jurisdic tion over the wit hdrawn appeals, and pr operly dismissed Trobovic’s attempt to refile them. The board was also corre ct to dismiss, as settled, Trobovic’s subsequent appeals related to the agen cy’s decision not to rehire him.