UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

SHARON L. WEEKLEY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

PH-0752-14-0878-I-1

DATE: April 8, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Sharon L. Weekley, Huntington, West Virginia, pro se.

Bradley J. Stark, Huntington, West Virginia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

dismissed her appeal as untimely filed. Generally, we grant petitions such as this 

one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; 

the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation 

or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the judge’s rulings 

 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent 

with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting 

error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal 

argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not 

available when the record closed. See Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this 

appeal, and based on the following points and authorities, we conclude that the 

petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the 

petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM 

the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113(b). 

¶2 The appellant filed an appeal challenging the agency’s decision to remove 

her from her position of Industrial Engineer, effective July 19, 2014. Initial 

Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. The agency proposed the appellant’s removal in a 

letter dated June 9, 2014, based on charges of abuse of leave, discourtesy, 

discourtesy toward supervisor, insubordination, and substandard work product 

pertaining to quality and timeliness. IAF, Tab 8 at 12-24. On July 10, 2014, the 

agency personally delivered the decision letter, dated July 9, 2014, which upheld 

the charges and imposed the penalty of removal. See id. at 25-37. The appellant 

filed her appeal on August 29, 2014. IAF, Tab 1. 

¶3 Because the appeal appeared to be untimely filed, the administrative judge 

ordered the appellant to provide evidence or argument showing that the appeal 

was timely filed or that there was good cause for the filing delay. IAF, Tab 5. In 

response, the appellant submitted evidence showing that she was hospitalized 

from June 13 through June 20, 2014. IAF, Tabs 6, 7. The administrative judge 

found that, while this period of time occurred after the appellant was issued the 

June 9, 2014 notice of proposed removal, her hospitalization occurred and ended 

17 days before she was issued the July 9, 2014 decision letter, which advised her

where to file a Board appeal as well as the correct filing deadline. IAF, Tab 8 at 
3

29-30. The administrative judge found further that the appellant’s submission 

offered no explanation or evidence of incapacity for the period from July 10, 

2014, through the August 11, 2014 filing deadline. IAF, Tab 10, Initial Decision 

(ID) at 3-4. Thus, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal as untimely filed 

without holding the hearing requested by the appellant. ID at 4.

¶4 On review, the appellant filed a pleading in which she merely asserted that 

she was wrongfully terminated. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. Because 

it was unclear whether the appellant was filing a petition for review of the 

administrative judge’s initial decision, the Clerk of the Board provided the 

appellant the opportunity to supplement her petition for review with documents or 

arguments. PFR File, Tab 2. The appellant filed a response in which she 

indicated that she is filing a petition for review of the initial decision, but she 

offered no further argument regarding the timeliness of her appeal. PFR File, 

Tab 3.

¶5 Because the appellant has raised no arguments challenging the 

administrative judge’s findings in the initial decision, the appellant has shown no 

error by the administrative judge in dismissing her appeal as untimely filed. 

Accordingly, the appellant’s petition for review does not meet the criteria for 

review under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115. See Weaver v. Department of the Navy, 

2 M.S.P.R. 129, 133 (1980) (before the Board will undertake a complete review 

of the record, the petitioning party must explain why the challenged factual 

determination is incorrect and identify the specific evidence in the record which 

demonstrates the error), review denied, 669 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); 

see also Tines v. Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992) (a 

petition for review must contain sufficient specificity to enable the Board to 

ascertain whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge justifying a complete 

review of the record).

¶6 Furthermore, the applicable law and the record evidence support the 

administrative judge’s findings that the appeal was untimely filed without a 
4

showing of good cause for the filing delay. ID at 3-4. Therefore, we discern no 

reason to disturb these explained findings. See Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 

74 M.S.P.R. 98, 106 (1997) (finding no reason to disturb the administrative 

judge’s findings where the administrative judge considered the evidence as a 

whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions); Broughton 

v. Department of Health & Human Services, 33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987) (same). 

Accordingly, the appellant has provided no basis upon which to disturb the initial 

decision.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request further review of this final decision.

Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review

You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination 

claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See Title 5 

of the United States Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you 

submit your request 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

If you submit your request 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, NE

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after 

your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your 

representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no 
5

later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to 

file, be very careful to file on time.

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action

If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your 

discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your 

discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States 

district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with 

the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If 

you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order 

before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar 

days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to 

file on time. 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.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board