NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

06-3116

WANDA THOMAS, Petitioner,

v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________________________ DECIDED: June 12, 2006

__________________________

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM.

DECISION Wanda Thomas petitions for review of t he final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that dismissed for lack of juri sdiction her appeal of her 14- day suspension by her employing agency. Thomas v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , No. AT3443050448-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 8, 2005) (“ Final Decision ”). We affirm

.DISCUSSI ON
I. On March 10, 2005, Ms. Thomas filed an a ppeal with the Board. In the appeal, she alleged that her employ ing agency, the Miami VA Medi cal Center, Miami, Florid a (“agency”), had improperly suspended her on Ma rch 7, 2005, from her position as a Program Support Clerk for 14 days, from March 20, 2005, to April 2, 2005, for disrespectful conduct and sleeping on duty. See Thomas v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , No. AT3443050448-I-1 (M.S. P.B. May 10, 2005) (“ Initial Dec i sion ”). Ms. Thomas charged that the agency’s action was reprisal for whistleblowing act i vity on her part. In an initial decision dated May 10, 2005, the administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was assigned dismis sed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Initial Decisio n

. The AJ explained that the Board lacks jurisd iction ov er suspens ions for less than 15 days and that Ms. Thomas’s suspens ion was for less than 15 days. Id. , slip op. at 2 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(2)) . The AJ noted that the su spension, if allegedly in retaliation for whistleblowing, could have bee n appealed as an individual-right-of-action (“IRA”) appeal under the Whistleblower Protec tion Act (“WPA”) after Office of Specia l Counsel (“OSC”) remedies had been exhausted. Id. , slip op. at 2-3 (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214(a) (3), 1221(a)). He pointed out, howev er, that Ms. Thomas had not raised an IRA claim and had not alleged that she had exhausted her OSC remedies. Id. The AJ ’s initial decis ion bec ame the final decision of the Board when the Board denied Ms. Thomas’s petition for review for fa ilure to meet the crit eria for review set forth at 5 C.F. R. § 1201.115(d). Fin a l De cision . This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2000).

06-3116 2II. Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Specifica lly , we must affirm the Board’s d e ci sion unless we find it to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discret ion, or otherwise not in a ccordanc e with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by subst antia l evidence. 5 U.S. C. § 7703(c) (2000); Kewley v. Dep’t o f Health & Human Servs. , 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The jurisdiction of the Board is not plen ary, but is “‘limit ed to those areas specifically granted by st atute or regulation.’” Garcia v. Dep’t of Homela nd Sec. , 437 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (quoting Antolin v. Dep’t of Justice , 895 F.2d 1395, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1989)); see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a) (2000). The Board does not hav e jurisdiction over suspensi ons for 14 days or less. See 5 U.S.C. § 7512 (2000); Synan v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd. , 765 F.2d 1099, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 1985). At the same time, the Board lacks jurisdiction over a repris al claim in the absence of an otherwise appealable action (such as a suspension of more than 14 days), see 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), unless a petitioner pres ents an IRA appeal unde r the WPA after exhausting administrative remedies before OSC. Yunus v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 242 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Board did not err in dismiss i ng Ms. T homas’s appeal for lac k of jurisdiction. Her suspension was not more than 14 days; her retaliation claim was not asserted in the setting of an otherwise appealable acti on; and she could not bring an IRA appeal because s he had failed to exhaust requir ed remedies before OS C. The Board’s decision is therefore affirmed.

06-3116 3Each party shall bear its own costs.

06-3116 4