NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With 

her on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant 

Director. Of counsel on the brief was F. Allen Phaup, Assistant General Counsel, Office 

of the General Counsel, General Law Division, United States General Services Division, 

of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. 

 

 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 order of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board denying his petitions for review of the initial decisions that dismissed, as 

withdrawn or settled pursuant to a comprehensive settlement agreement, his five 

appeals of allegedly improper actions taken by the General 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 administrative judge made no error in law 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 injury that was ultimately accepted as 

compensable by the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. 

One year later, Trobovic applied for a budget analyst position, which he was denied. He 

brought five appeals before the board in connection with his GSA employment, claiming 

constructive suspensions and violations of his 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, Trobovic agreed to participate in the board’s 

Mediation Appeals Process. On August 1, 2007, the parties signed and executed a 

comprehensive settlement agreement involving all issues in his pending appeals. 

Trobovic agreed to withdraw, with prejudice, all of his appeals and neither contest his 

removal from service for unavailability for work, nor seek future employment with the 

agency; the GSA agreed, inter alia, to assist him with his application for disability 

retirement. 

Within 30 days of executing the settlement agreement, Trobovic notified the 

board that he rescinded the agreement, and proceeded to refile his withdrawn appeals. 

He further averred that the settlement agreement was invalid. Specifically, Trobovic 

alleged that (1) both parties mistakenly believed that he would qualify for disability 

retirement, (2) he was entitled to a 30-day review period before accepting the 

agreement, (3) Asperger’s Syndrome prevented him from understanding the legal 

2008-3229 2
significance 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 the 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 negotiations and that his 

medical condition did not render him incapable of understanding the meaning and 

legally binding nature of the settlement agreement. Further, contrary to Trobovic’s 

assertion, there is no provision for a 30-day review period during which an already 

executed settlement agreement can be unilaterally rescinded. Accordingly, the board 

upheld the validity of the settlement agreement, and based on its terms found that 

Trobovic withdrew his appeals, thereby divesting the board of jurisdiction to address the 

merits of his claims. 

 We must affirm the final decision of the board unless we conclude that it is 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The plain language of the settlement agreement rebuts Trobovic’s 

arguments with respect to mutual mistake, fraud, and coercion, and supports the 

board’s conclusion that the bilateral agreement was voluntarily executed. The 

settlement agreement is drafted in plain English and states 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, refrain from contesting his pending Workers’ 

Compensation claims, and assist him with the filing of his disability retirement 

application. Nowhere in the agreement does GSA guarantee that his disability 

2008-3229 3
2008-3229 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 consultation with his 

representative, and (3) signed it free from coercion while agreeing not to claim 

otherwise in the future. 

With respect to Trobovic’s argument that Asperger’s Syndrome rendered him 

incompetent to contract, the board properly considered and weighed the credibility of his 

testimony and psychiatric evaluations, and concluded he was competent to contract. 

Substantial evidence supports the board’s conclusion. Because the settlement 

agreement became effective and binding when formed on August 1, 2007, the board 

correctly concluded that Trobovic voluntarily withdrew his appeals, with prejudice, and 

prospectively agreed not to seek reemployment with the agency. The board was 

therefore divested of jurisdiction over the withdrawn appeals, and properly dismissed 

Trobovic’s attempt to refile them. The board was also correct to dismiss, as settled, 

Trobovic’s subsequent appeals related to the agency’s decision not to rehire him.