UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

LOUVADA JONES,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DA-0752-21-0072-I-4

DATE: January 23, 2024

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Shaun Yancey, Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.

Kimya Jones, Esquire, and James C. Bush, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for 

the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the

appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good

cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

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 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

¶2 The appellant retired from the agency in March 2019 and thereafter filed the

present appeal asserting that her retirement was involuntary. Jones v. Department

of Justice, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-21-0072-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 1;

Jones v. Department of Justice, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-21-0072-I-4, Appeal

File (I-4 AF), Tab 5 at 27. In a February 24, 2023 initial decision, the

administrative judge dismissed the appeal without a hearing for lack of

jurisdiction. I-4 AF, Tab 9, Initial Decision (ID). The initial decision informed

the appellant that it would become final on March 31, 2023, unless a petition for

review was filed by that date. ID at 11. The initial decision also informed the

appellant how and where to file a petition for review. ID at 12. The appellant

filed a petition for review on April 4, 2023. Petition for Review (PFR) File,

Tab 3. The agency filed a response, to which the appellant replied. PFR File,

Tabs 5, 8.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

¶3 The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed

within 35 days of the issuance of the initial decision or, if the appellant shows

that the initial decision was received more than 5 days after the date of issuance,

within 30 days after the date she received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.114(e). In the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness, the Board will

not waive its timeliness requirements in the absence of good cause shown,

regardless of how minimal the delay. Mitchell v. Broadcasting Board of

Governors, 107 M.S.P.R. 8, ¶ 6 (2007). To determine whether an appellant has

shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of the delay, the

reasonableness of an appellant’s excuse and her showing of due diligence,

whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented evidence of the

existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to comply

with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune which similarly

2
shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely file her petition.

Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d,

79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table).

¶4 We find that the appellant did not establish good cause for her delay. The

appellant, a registered e-filer who is deemed to have received the initial decision

on its date of issuance, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2), filed her April 4, 2023 petition

for review 4 days past its March 31, 2023 due date. The Office of the Clerk of

the Board issued a petition for review acknowledgment letter informing the

appellant that her petition was untimely filed and affording her the opportunity to

file, by April 20, 2023, a motion to waive the time limit for good cause. PFR

File, Tab 4 at 1-2. The appellant, who obtained representation before March 31,

2023, and was represented throughout the petition for review proceedings, PFR

File, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 8, filed her motion to waive the time limit over 1 month past

the deadline, with no explanation for that delay, PFR File, Tab 6. 2 We thus need

not consider the appellant’s motion, the untimely filing of which demonstrates her

lack of due diligence in filing her petition for review. Alford v. Office of

Personnel Management, 108 M.S.P.R. 414, ¶¶ 8-9, 11 (2008).

¶5 Even if we were to consider the appellant’s motion, the outcome would be

the same. The Board has dismissed petitions for review filed as little as 1 day

late absent showings of good cause. Pangelinan v. Department of Homeland

Security, 104 M.S.P.R. 108, ¶ 9 (2006); Lands v. Department of the Air Force,

95 M.S.P.R. 593, ¶¶ 2-3, 6-8 (2004). The appellant’s motion consists of a

declaration from her representative asserting, among other things, that the

appellant attempted to e-file her petition for review on its due date but that it

would not go through. PFR File, Tab 6 at 2. The representative also claims the

2

 The appellant asserts that she timely filed her motion in response to the Office of the

Clerk of the Board’s acknowledgment letter on April 19, 2023. PFR File, Tab 8 at 6.

But the appellant’s motion, though purportedly signed by her representative on

April 19, 2023, was not filed until May 22, 2023. PFR File, Tab 6. There is no

indication that the appellant attempted to file her motion any earlier, and her claim that

she timely filed her motion appears inaccurate. 

3
appellant then emailed her petition to the Dallas Regional Office, which

purportedly responded that it was not the correct recipient. Id. The

representative claims that the appellant then requested an extension of time until

“it was figured out” and that the appellant was finally able to file through the

“proper avenue.” Id. Lastly, the representative asserts that she personally did not

ask the Board for an extension of time to file the petition for review before its

deadline because she “mistakenly thought it was timely.” PFR File, Tab 6 at 1.

¶6 Even if true, these explanations do not demonstrate good cause. The initial

decision explained under the heading “NOTICE TO APPELLANT,” that it “will

become final on March 31, 2023, unless a petition for review is filed by that

date.” ID at 11 (emphases in original). The initial decision further explained

that, with an exception not relevant here, March 31, 2023, was an “important

date” because it was the “last day on which [she could] file a petition for review

with the Board.” Id. To the extent the appellant attributes her delay in filing her

petition for review to her attorney’s misunderstanding of its due date, the

appellant is responsible for the errors of her chosen representative, Sofio v.

Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981), and her inability to follow

explicit filing instructions in the initial decision does not constitute good cause

for her delay, Groesbeck v. Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 4

(2008).

¶7 Similarly, to the extent the appellant attributes her delay to the time it took

for her to discover the proper filing method after her purported e-filing issue and

the Dallas Regional Office’s alleged rejection of her petition, she does not explain

why she did not follow the instructions in the initial decision. Those instructions

stated that a petition for review must be filed with the Clerk of the Board,

provided the Clerk’s address, and described permissible methods of filing,

including by facsimile—a method at the appellant’s disposal by which she

ultimately filed her petition for review. ID at 12; PFR File, Tab 3 at 1. Again,

4
the appellant’s inability to follow explicit instructions in the initial decision does

not excuse her delay.3 Groesbeck, 109 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 4.

¶8 Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed without

good cause shown. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection

Board regarding the timeliness of the petition for review. The initial decision

remains the final decision of the Board regarding the dismissal of the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS4

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 to 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

appropriate 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 applicable 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 choices of review

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

3

 We observe that, in apparent contradiction of her representative’s assertions that the

Dallas Regional Office rejected the appellant’s submission of her petition and that the

appellant requested an extension of time to determine the proper filing method and

finally submitted her petition through the “proper avenue,” the appellant ultimately

filed her untimely petition with the Dallas Regional Office, which received the

document. PFR File, Tab 3 at 1, Tab 6 at 2.

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 address: 

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

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 provided 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 obtain

6
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

with 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. 20013 

7
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. Court 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: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

5

 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain

whistleblower claims 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 certain 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
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

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 provided by 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: ______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

9