United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KEVIN D. JONES,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2022-1788

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-21-0375-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: April 19, 2024

______________________ 

STEPHEN B. PERSHING, Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & 

Fitch, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also 

represented by AARON H. SZOT. 

 ELIZABETH W. FLETCHER, Office of General Counsel, 

United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

ALLISON JANE BOYLE, KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. 

 PARAS NARESH SHAH, Office of General Counsel, National Treasury Employees Union, for amicus curiae National Treasury Employees Union. Also represented by 

JULIE M. WILSON. 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 1 Filed: 04/19/2024
2 JONES v. MSPB

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Kevin D. Jones appeals from a decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) dismissing his administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Jones v. Dep’t. 

of Just., No. DC-0752-21-0375-I-1, 2022 WL 445118

(M.S.P.B. Feb. 10, 2022), J.A. 1–21 (“Decision”). For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Jones began a term position as an Attorney, GS-0905-

14, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) on 

April 15, 2018. Decision at J.A. 2; J.A. 35. On August 4, 

2019, he transferred without a break in service to the position of Attorney, GS-0905-14, with the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives (“ATF”). Id.

At USDA, Jones primarily provided advice and counsel 

to senior management regarding discrimination complaints filed against the agency. Decision at J.A. 8–10. He 

also litigated ensuing discrimination claims before the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), 

which included performing legal research, engaging in oral 

advocacy, and drafting pleadings, motions, discovery materials, and more. Id.

At ATF, Jones served as an advisor to the Professional 

Review Board (“PRB”) as part of a team of attorneys in the 

Management Division of the ATF Office of the General 

Counsel (“OGC”). Id. at J.A. 2. The Management Division 

handled legal issues in the areas of Employment, Contracts, Fiscal, and Ethics. Id. Jones’s primary duties were 

in the employment field. Id. He also served as the “alternate” contracts attorney, with another attorney in the 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 2 Filed: 04/19/2024
JONES v. MSPB 3

Management Division serving as the primary contracts attorney. Id.

After Jones had been at ATF for approximately three 

months, his supervisor learned that the Management Division’s primary contracts attorney was leaving the agency 

and directed that attorney to prepare Jones to take over 

her contracts matters. Id. Prior to that time, Jones had 

not worked on any contracts matters at ATF. Id. at J.A. 7. 

It soon became evident that Jones did not have the contract

law experience that his supervisors had thought that he 

had. Id. at J.A. 2–3. One of Jones’s supervisors informed 

him that they intended to recommend termination of his 

appointment and gave him the opportunity to resign. Id. 

Jones resigned effective December 21, 2019. Id. at J.A. 3. 

On March 19, 2020, Jones filed a complaint alleging 

that ATF had discriminated against him on the basis of his 

race, sex, age, disability, and reprisal when it forced him to 

resign. Id. He also alleged that he was effectively terminated without due process and that, if he was a probationary employee, ATF failed to follow the procedures set forth 

in 5 C.F.R. § 315.805. Id. at J.A. 4. On March 30, 2021, 

ATF issued a Final Decision finding no evidence of discrimination and provided Jones with notice of his right to appeal the decision to the Board. Id. at J.A. 3. On April 26, 

2021, Jones timely appealed to the Board. Id. 

It was Jones’s burden to prove by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the Board had jurisdiction over his claim. 

5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A); Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland 

Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Jones alleged 

that his resignation was involuntary and was therefore an 

adverse action within the Board’s jurisdiction. Decision at 

J.A. 4. The DOJ disputed that his resignation was 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 3 Filed: 04/19/2024
4 JONES v. MSPB

involuntary1 and asserted that he was not an “employee”

under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B) for jurisdiction as required 

by 5 U.S.C. § 7513. Section 7511(a)(1)(B) defines an “employee” as a person “who has completed 1 year of current 

continuous service in the same or similar positions.” Jones 

responded that he was an “employee” under the statute because his two governmental positions had been similar. 

J.A. 28–31. An Administrative Judge of the Board disagreed with Jones, holding in an Initial Decision that the 

Board lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones’s appeal because he 

had not shown that he was an “employee” as required by 

§ 7511(a)(1)(B). Decision at J.A. 1. 

The AJ found that because Jones’s position at ATF 

“was not the same or similar to his prior position with 

USDA,” his four months of work at ATF did not qualify him 

as an “employee” for purposes of the statute. Id. at J.A. 6. 

The AJ noted that Jones had testified to “several distinctions between the actual tasks he performed for both agencies,” despite using the same “broad labels” of his 

responsibilities at each. Id. at J.A. 8. For example, the AJ 

found that Jones’s position at USDA required him to advocate before EEOC administrative judges, whereas, at ATF, 

he discussed matters with the PRB Chair. Id. at J.A. 9. 

The AJ also noted that although certain new trainings and 

reference materials were not “required” by ATF to perform

Jones’s duties, Jones had not disputed that the training 

and materials “were either useful or necessary for his performance.” Id. The AJ found that, despite both positions 

falling “under the broad ‘employment law’ umbrella,” the 

1 The AJ did not make a finding on whether or not

Jones’s resignation was voluntary or involuntary, and the 

Board does not argue that theory as an alternative basis to 

affirm on appeal. See Oral Arg. at 26:58–28:37 available at 

https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22

-1788_03142024.mp3. 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 4 Filed: 04/19/2024
JONES v. MSPB 5

record showed that Jones’s “ATF position was different 

from his USDA position given the distinct nature of the 

tasks he performed.” Id. 

Finding that Jones was not an “employee,” the AJ dismissed Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at J.A. 

14. Jones did not appeal the Initial Decision to the full 

Board, which at the time did not have a quorum, so the AJ’s 

Initial Decision therefore became the Final Decision of the 

Board on March 17, 2022. Jones appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).2 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s jurisdictional determinations de 

novo and its underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. Parrott v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 519 F.3d 1328, 1334

(Fed. Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison v. NLRB, 305 

U.S. 197, 229 (1938). On appeal, “[t]he petitioner bears the 

burden of establishing error in the Board’s decision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 

1998). 

The Board is a tribunal having limited appellate jurisdiction, only permitted to hear matters as granted by law, 

rule, or regulation. Maddox v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 759 

F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985); 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). Pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 7513(d), the statute enumerating various 

2 The Board initially challenged our appellate jurisdiction, arguing that the appeal was a mixed case and 

Jones had not explicitly waived his discrimination claims. 

Resp’t’s Br. at 15–17. But after Jones filed an updated Fed. 

Cir. R. 15(c) Statement Concerning Discrimination, see 

ECF 33, the Board agreed that his discrimination claims 

had been waived. Oral Arg. at 26:26–42. There is therefore 

no remaining dispute that we have appellate jurisdiction.

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 5 Filed: 04/19/2024
6 JONES v. MSPB

adverse actions over which the Board has jurisdiction, an

“employee against whom an action is taken under this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board” (emphasis added). Section 7511(a)(1)(B), in turn,

defines an “employee” as “a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions.” “Similar 

positions” are further defined by 5 C.F.R. § 752.402 as “positions in which the duties performed are similar in nature 

and character and require substantially the same or similar qualifications, so that the incumbent could be interchanged between the positions without significant training 

or undue interruption to the work.” Positions may be 

deemed “similar” if they are in the “same line of work,” such

as involving “related or comparable work that requires the 

same or similar skills.” Mathis v. U.S. Postal Serv., 

865 F.2d 232, 234 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In determining similarity, it is essential to consider “the nature of the work performed in the two jobs” and “the fundamental character of 

the work” performed. Id. at 235. 

Jones argues that the AJ did not properly apply the law 

in determining that the Board lacked jurisdiction and that 

the AJ’s underlying factual findings were not supported by 

substantial evidence. The Board responds that the AJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and without 

legal error. We address both the legal and factual arguments in turn.

I 

Jones alleges that the AJ misapplied the law in determining whether or not he qualified as an “employee” as 

used in § 7513(d). Specifically, he alleges that the AJ’s 

analysis (1) is inconsistent with our precedent, Mathis, 865 

F.2d 232; (2) erroneously relied on our nonprecedential decision in Amend v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 221 F. 

App’x 983 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and (3) erroneously relied upon 

voluntary training—that the DOJ allegedly admitted that 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 6 Filed: 04/19/2024
JONES v. MSPB 7

Jones did not perform and were not required—to conclude 

that the positions were not similar. 

Jones argues that the AJ looked for “exact interchangeability,” rather than looking at the “fundamental character” of the positions as mandated by Mathis. See Oral Arg. 

at 3:19–55; Pet’r’s Br. at 8–17. But Jones’s counsel also 

acknowledged that the AJ “never said that’s what she was 

doing.” Oral Arg. at 3:57–4:17. And there is no evidence 

that the AJ ignored or misapplied Mathis. Rather, the AJ 

correctly quoted that case when discussing the proper considerations for determining whether or not two positions 

are similar. Decision at J.A. 6. That the AJ did not further 

discuss that specific case or compare it with the facts at 

hand is not an error. Nor does it mean that the AJ looked 

for exact interchangeability between the positions. Jones’s 

counsel’s suggestion that the AJ “took a case out of the air, 

tried to match the duties, and, frankly, did so in a disingenuous manner,” Oral Arg. at 4:30–38, is both inappropriate 

and inconsistent with the AJ’s decision. The AJ’s decision 

shows that the AJ thoroughly considered the record evidence to determine the fundamental character of the two 

positions. See, e.g., Decision at J.A. 6, 9–10. Mathis does 

not dictate that the two positions at issue here are “similar,” and the AJ did not clearly err in finding otherwise.

Jones also argues that the AJ clearly erred in relying 

on the nonprecedential decision in Amend to “justify the 

same outcome in this case.” Pet’r’s Br. at 19. But the AJ 

neither cited Amend as controlling nor centered her analysis on that case. All the AJ did was accurately cite the case 

as exemplary legal support for her finding that there were 

meaningful distinctions between the positions. Decision at 

J.A. 11. Pointing to a nonprecedential decision in further 

support of a factual finding supported by record evidence is 

not reversible legal error. And, indeed, we agree that 

Amend is informative, albeit not binding. 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 7 Filed: 04/19/2024
8 JONES v. MSPB

Jones also alleges that the AJ, in finding that the positions were not similar, erred in relying on the fact that 

Jones had paid for a “week-long subject matter seminar at 

the start of his employment” and purchased reference material when the DOJ had stipulated that those were “not 

required” and Jones never ultimately attended the conference. Decision at J.A. 9; J.A. 37, 62–63. However, the AJ 

recognized that those trainings and materials were not required, only additionally finding that Jones did not “dispute that the training and materials were either useful or 

necessary for his performance.” Decision at J.A. 9. The AJ

therefore did not misinterpret or misapprehend the evidence presented. It was also not the foundation for the AJ’s

ultimate finding that the two positions were not similar, 

but merely one of several contributing factors, if a factor at 

all. Contrary to Jones’s position, the AJ did not hold that 

the training and reference material “render[ed] his DOJ 

position dissimilar from his USDA position.” Pet’r’s Br. at 

16. We therefore see no error in the AJ having considered

that additional training and reference materials may have 

been helpful as part of her overall analysis of similarity.

II

The AJ’s finding that Jones was not an “employee” as 

used in § 7513(d) because his two positions were not “similar” is also supported by substantial evidence. It is undisputed that Jones was preference eligible and that his 

service was continuous, as he transferred from USDA to 

ATF without a break in service. Decision at J.A. 2. The

sole dispute is thus whether or not Jones’s two positions

were “similar.” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B). As the AJ found,

and is supported by substantial evidence, the most significant distinguishing factor is that at USDA, Jones had been 

litigating already-filed employment discrimination cases, 

and that at ATF, he had been advising others on potential 

employment disciplinary actions. Jones’s contention that 

the difference between litigating and advising “is irrelevant” is without merit. Pet’r’s Reply Br. at 4.

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 8 Filed: 04/19/2024
JONES v. MSPB 9

Jones testified that his USDA responsibilities primarily consisted of litigating before the EEOC and assisting in 

determining settlement options after actions had occurred 

and a complaint had been filed. Decision at J.A. 8; J.A. 73. 

The USDA position description echoes that understanding, 

explaining that the individual holding the position represents the agency “in administrative and judicial proceedings,” may “negotiate or participate in negotiating 

settlements,” and prepares various filings, such as pleadings, motions, and briefs, “in connection with suits by and 

against the Government.” J.A. 49, 51; see also J.A. 73. 

Jones even acknowledges in his briefs that his job at USDA 

“was to persuade administrative judges of his position.” 

Pet’r’s Reply Br. at 14.

Meanwhile, at ATF, Jones primarily provided advice 

and counsel on prospective, potential disciplinary actions, 

Decision at J.A. 6–7 (citing testimony of Jones’s direct supervisor at ATF), which is further supported by the vacancy announcement for Jones’s ATF position, J.A. 44. 

That announcement explains that, among other things, 

“the incumbent primarily provides legal advice and recommendations to ATF officials in the area of employment 

law.” J.A. 44. Jones does not appear to have disputed his 

supervisor’s description of his responsibilities or the description in the vacancy announcement. Indeed, his own 

testimony confirms that he spent the majority of his time 

advising the PRB Chair and BDO in connection with potential and proposed disciplinary actions. Decision at J.A. 

8; J.A. 74.

There is no dispute that Jones’s two positions were 

both Attorney – Advisor, GS-0905-14 positions with a general focus on employment law, but those two facts alone are 

not dispositive of the nature and character of the work 

Jones performed at each. Looking at the nature and character of the duties for each position does not mean taking a 

bird’s eye view. Any two positions, with enough distance, 

may mistakenly look similar. And likewise, too granular 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 9 Filed: 04/19/2024
10 JONES v. MSPB

an approach may result in an equally incorrect outcome. 

Here, the record supports the finding that the two positions 

involved different duties and required different skills, fundamentally affecting the nature and character of the work. 

As the AJ found, even if the USDA position did involve 

some advising, Jones was “advising on different types of 

employment situations appealable in different forums, 

with different procedural requirements, burdens of proof, 

and relevant legal principles.” Decision at J.A. 10. 

Neither party has argued that the positions are the 

“same” under § 7511(a)(1)(B), so it is indisputable that 

there are differences between them—the question is 

whether and how those differences affect the fundamental 

character of Jones’s duties. Ultimately, as with most analyses of this type, there are factors that weigh both in favor 

of and against a finding of the two positions being similar. 

But the record shows that there is relevant evidence adequate to support the AJ’s finding. In reaching its determination that Jones was not an “employee” as used in

§ 7513(d), the AJ thoroughly considered witness testimony 

regarding Jones’s responsibilities at each position, along 

with job descriptions for each position and Jones’s own testimony. See, e.g., Decision at J.A. 6. It would be inappropriate for us to reweigh that factual evidence, particularly

the credibility of each witness. See, e.g., J.C. Equip. Corp. 

v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting 

that Board’s “determinations of witness credibility are virtually unreviewable” because it “saw the witnesses and 

heard the testimony” (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted)). 

The Board and Jones both spend significant portions of 

their briefs disputing whether or not Jones’s ATF position 

involved contract law duties. But we need not resolve this 

disagreement. The AJ did not appear to rely on his alleged 

contract law duties at ATF in finding distinctions between 

the two positions. Rather, she found that “it is undisputed 

that [Jones] did not actually perform any such duties 

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 10 Filed: 04/19/2024
JONES v. MSPB 11

during his ATF tenure.” Decision at J.A. 7; see also Oral 

Arg. at 19:55–20:11 (the Board agreeing that the AJ had 

not relied on the alleged contract law aspect of the ATF position). If anything, the AJ found in favor of Jones on that

point. We find it unnecessary to address the issue further. 

Even assuming Jones had no contract law duties at ATF, 

either actual or prospective, substantial evidence supports 

the AJ’s finding that the two positions were not similar. 

The AJ therefore did not legally err or lack substantial 

evidence when reaching her determination that Jones was 

not an “employee” as used in § 7513(d). We thus affirm the 

Board’s ultimate determination that it lacked jurisdiction 

to hear Jones’s appeal. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Jones’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1788 Document: 88 Page: 11 Filed: 04/19/2024