NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

GARY MCLEOD MANN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3182 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. AT3330101108-I-1. 

__________________________ 

Decided: December 12, 2011 

___________________________ 

GARY MCLEOD MANN, of Hinesville, Georgia, pro se. 

J. HUNTER BENNETT, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him 

on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, 

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and DEBORAH A. BYNUM, 

Assistant Director. 

__________________________ 
MANN v. ARMY 2

Before LOURIE, PLAGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Gary McLeod Mann petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The 

Board denied Mann’s request for corrective action under 

the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 

(“VEOA”) with respect to the Army’s refusal to consider 

Mann’s application for employment. Mann v. Dep’t of 

Army (“Final Order”), No. AT-3330-10-1108-I-1 (M.S.P.B. 

Jun. 9, 2011). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The Army announced a vacancy for a Management 

Analyst position in the Directorate of Logistics at Fort 

Stewart, Georgia, on July 26, 2010. Eligibility for the 

vacancy was limited to “[c]urrent Army employees.” S.A. 

23. Mann applied for the position, and the agency informed Mann that he was not eligible for the position 

because he was not employed by the agency at the time of 

the vacancy announcement. Mann, who is a veteran, 

subsequently filed a complaint with the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service at the Department of 

Labor alleging that the agency violated his veterans’ 

preference rights under the VEOA by not considering him 

for the position. The Department of Labor found that the 

VEOA requires an agency to consider eligible veterans 

only if the agency is recruiting from outside of its own 

workforce and that no violation had occurred because the 

Management Analyst vacancy was limited to current 

agency employees.

Mann appealed to the Board on September 20, 2010, 

contending that the limitation excluding non-agency 

employees from applying for the position was a violation 

of his veterans’ preference rights. Mann submitted re-
3 MANN v. ARMY

quests for discovery, pursuing a different theory, i.e., that 

the agency had in fact accepted other applications from 

outside of the agency’s own workforce and was thus 

obligated to also consider his application. On October 21, 

2010, Mann submitted a First Request for Discovery, 

requesting, among other things, the agency to admit that 

it had accepted applications from outside of its own workforce for the position. In its response, the agency denied 

having accepted applications from outside of its own 

workforce for the position. On November 24, 2010, Mann 

submitted a Second Request for Discovery, which was 

similar to the first request, but was directed to specific 

agency employees. The agency objected on the ground 

that the specific employees were not parties to the action, 

but again denied having accepted applications from 

outside of the agency’s own workforce. On December 22, 

2010, Mann filed a Motion to Compel Discovery alleging 

that the agency refused to answer his requests. 

The Administrative Judge (“AJ”) found that 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3304(f)(1) requires agencies to give veterans an opportunity to compete for a position only if the agency accepts 

applications from outside of its own workforce. Because 

the announcement for the position limited eligible applicants to current agency employees, the AJ held that the 

agency was not required to consider Mann for the position. The AJ also denied Mann’s Motion to Compel Discovery. The AJ dismissed the case for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted. Mann petitioned for review by the full Board. The Board corrected 

the disposition from a dismissal for failure to state a claim 

to a denial of Mann’s request for corrective action, and 

denied Mann’s petition for review. Final Order, slip op. at 

3. Mann timely petitioned for review by this court. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 
MANN v. ARMY 4

DISCUSSION

Our review of Board decisions is limited. We may 

only set aside agency actions, findings, or conclusions that 

we find to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained 

without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation 

having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial 

evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see also Bennett v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 635 F.3d 1215, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

Mann’s first argument is that the agency violated the 

VEOA by limiting the position to applicants from within 

the agency’s own workforce. The VEOA provides in 

relevant part that “veterans . . . may not be denied the 

opportunity to compete for vacant positions for which the 

agency making the announcement will accept applications 

from individuals outside its own workforce under merit 

promotion procedures.” 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1).1 We have 

held that the VEOA guarantees veterans “a right to apply 

and an opportunity to compete” for agency vacancies that 

are open to applicants from outside of an agency’s own 

workforce under merit promotion procedures. Joseph v. 

F.T.C., 505 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007). But the Act 

does not provide veterans an opportunity to compete for 

vacant positions for which the agency making the announcement will not accept applications from individuals 

outside its own workforce. Mann’s contention that the 

agency violated the VEOA in limiting consideration for 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(4) ensures that veterans will receive notice of their eligibility to compete when positions 

are open to applicants from outside of the agency’s own 

workforce. It provides that “[t]he area of consideration for 

all merit promotion announcements which include consideration of individuals of the Federal workforce shall 

indicate that . . . veterans . . . are eligible to apply.” Id.
5 MANN v. ARMY

the position to individuals within the agency is without 

merit. 

Mann alternatively argues that the agency accepted 

applications for the Management Analyst position from 

outside of the agency’s own workforce and was thus 

obligated under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) to also consider his 

application. It is undisputed that the vacancy announcement limited eligible applicants to “[c]urrent Army employees.” S.A. 23. Further, the agency’s responses to 

Mann’s initial discovery requests expressly denied having 

accepted applications for the position from outside of its 

own workforce. Thus, substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s conclusion that the agency only considered applications from within its own workforce, and in turn, that 

no violation of section 3304(f)(1) had occurred. 

Mann also argues that the AJ improperly denied his 

Motion to Compel Discovery. Mann has failed to establish 

that he had not received full responses from the agency to 

both of his requests for discovery. In these circumstances, 

we find no error in the denial of Mann’s Motion to Compel 

Discovery. See Curtin v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 846 F.2d 

1373, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

No costs.