NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CASANOVA HAMBRICK,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1986

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-14-0454-C-1. 

______________________ 

Decided: October 7, 2016

______________________ 

CASANOVA HAMBRICK, Clarkton, NC, pro se.

ERIN MURDOCK-PARK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BRIAN A.

MIZOGUCHI. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, TARANTO, and HUGHES,

Circuit Judges.
2 HAMBRICK V. USPS

PER CURIAM.

Casanova Hambrick asked the Merit Systems Protection Board to enforce a settlement agreement he had 

reached with the United States Postal Service in an 

earlier appeal he had filed with the Board. The Board 

denied the request for enforcement on its merits as to all 

of the live claims of noncompliance with the settlement 

agreement that Mr. Hambrick had presented in his 

petition for enforcement. As to certain other, laterpresented allegations of noncompliance, the Board referred those for separate consideration by a regional 

Board office. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In February 2014, the Postal Service removed Mr. 

Hambrick from his employment, based on a charge of 

misconduct. On February 14, 2014, Mr. Hambrick filed a 

Board appeal challenging his removal. While the appeal 

was pending, he voluntarily retired from the Postal Service, which, in turn, made a “terminal leave” payment to 

him in September 2014. The Postal Service made an 

initial calculation of a gross amount of $16,329.68 owed to 

Mr. Hambrick for accumulated untaken annual-leave and 

holiday hours. It then subtracted $5050.83 in certain 

withholdings—mostly or all, it appears, representing 

taxes owed by Mr. Hambrick on the gross amount—to 

arrive at a figure of $11,278.85. And it then further 

subtracted $307.14 that Mr. Hambrick owed for an unpaid health-insurance premium. Mr. Hambrick received a 

check for $10,971.71. 

On November 6, 2014, Mr. Hambrick and the Postal 

Service entered into a “Settlement Agreement and Release” to resolve his Board appeal of his removal. Under 

the agreement, Mr. Hambrick would have his retirement 

cancelled and would return to work, and the Postal Service would pay him backpay from February 12, 2014, until

he returned to work. 
HAMBRICK V. USPS 3

On November 7, 2014, the Board administrative judge 

issued an Initial Decision dismissing the appeal as settled 

and notifying the parties that the settlement agreement 

was entered into the Board’s records to permit later Board 

enforcement if necessary. On December 12, 2014, that 

Initial Decision became final. 

Upon Mr. Hambrick’s reinstatement, the Postal Service issued him a debt-collection notice for $16,329.68—

the gross amount the Postal Service had initially calculated in September 2014 when making its “terminal pay” 

payment to Mr. Hambrick upon his (now rescinded) 

retirement. Mr. Hambrick challenged the debt-collection 

notice before a postal administrative judge. On April 2, 

2015, the Postal Service issued Mr. Hambrick its backpay 

check, and the amount of that check reflected a deduction

of $16,329.68 as “repayment for accrued annual leave and 

holiday hours that [Mr. Hambrick was] paid shortly after 

voluntarily separating from the Agency.” Resp. App. 23. 

The Postal Service informed the postal administrative 

judge that it “was no longer seeking collection of the 

$16,329.68 debt” (which it had just collected by reducing 

the backpay payment). Resp. App. 3. In response, on 

July 7, 2015, the postal administrative judge issued a 

“Final Decision under the Debt Collection Act of 1982,” 

which stated that Mr. Hambrick’s liability for the 

$16,329.68 was resolved, that the Postal Service was no 

longer seeking to collect that debt, and that “[t]he Postal 

Service may not collect that $16,329.68 debt at issue from 

[Mr. Hambrick] by involuntary administrative salary

offset.” Resp. App. 25–26 (emphasis added).

On September 21, 2015, Mr. Hambrick filed a petition 

for enforcement with the Board, arguing that the Postal 

Service had failed to comply with the 2014 “Settlement 

Agreement and Release.” After receiving clarification as 

to the scope of the allegations from Mr. Hambrick’s representative, the Postal Service submitted evidence to the 

Board administrative judge assigned to the petition for 
4 HAMBRICK V. USPS

enforcement. In his Initial Decision, the administrative 

judge characterized the Postal Service as having “provided unrefuted evidence to show that it properly paid” Mr. 

Hambrick the backpay required by the settlement agreement and as having “explained that it had properly deducted $16,329.68 from the gross back pay amount as 

repayment for accrued annual leave and holiday hours 

that [Mr. Hambrick] had been paid shortly after his 

separation” in 2014, while restoring those leave and 

holiday hours upon his reinstatement. Resp. App. 15; see 

also id. at 17. On that basis, the administrative judge

concluded that Mr. Hambrick failed to prove a material

breach of the settlement agreement and therefore denied 

the petition for enforcement. 

On October 29, 2015, Mr. Hambrick petitioned the full 

Board for review of the Initial Decision. He argued (as 

the Board described the contentions) that the Postal 

Service “owe[d] him $5,357.97 because it collected the full 

$16,329.68 instead of the $10,971.71 payment he was 

issued in September 2014.” Resp. App. 4–5. At a minimum, he argued, the Postal Service “failed to explain the 

$307.14 discrepancy between the $10,971.71 check and 

the net terminal payment of $11,278.85 recorded on the 

pay stub.” Resp. App. 5. In his broadest contention, Mr. 

Hambrick also contended that the postal administrative 

judge’s ruling dated July 7, 2015, precluded the Postal 

Service from enforcing the $16,329.68 debt by offsets from 

the otherwise-proper amount of backpay. Id. Lastly, Mr. 

Hambrick argued “that his gross back pay should have 

been $77,780 instead of $64,149.11.” Id.

On March 8, 2016, the Board affirmed the administrative judge’s decision to deny Mr. Hambrick’s petition for 

enforcement of the settlement agreement. The Board 

found that the $16,329.68 deduction was proper because, 

“[t]aking into account tax withholding and voluntary 

deductions, the effect of the debt collection was to reduce 

the appellant’s net back pay award by the amount of his 
HAMBRICK V. USPS 5

net terminal leave pay, i.e., $11,278.85.” Resp. App. 5. 

Regarding the $307.14 amount Mr. Hambrick challenged 

as unexplained, the Board concluded that the amount was 

“subtracted to repay an outstanding health benefit invoice,” as the Postal Service stated to Mr. Hambrick in a 

November 2014 email. Id. Further, the Board determined, Mr. Hambrick was misreading the postal administrative judge’s order, which “did not require the agency to 

return the amount it had previously collected.” Id. In 

sum, the Postal Service had complied with the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement. Id. 

The Board added that Mr. Hambrick’s other allegations of noncompliance were new. These included not 

only the allegation that his backpay “should have been 

$77,780 instead of $64,149.11” but allegations that “the 

agency failed to pay him $156 per the terms of the settlement agreement and failed to restore all of the annual 

leave to which he is entitled” and an allegation concerning 

his Thrift Savings Plan account. Resp. App. 5. Stating 

that “allegations of noncompliance with a settlement 

agreement are properly a matter for initial consideration 

by the regional office on a petition for enforcement,” the 

Board forwarded those claims to its Washington regional 

office. Resp. App. 6.

Mr. Hambrick appeals under 5 U.S.C. § 7703. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is 

“(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). The burden is on the petitioner to establish agency error. McCrary v. Office of Pers. 

Mgt., 459 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 
6 HAMBRICK V. USPS

Mr. Hambrick has provided no basis for disturbing 

the Board’s decision. With regard to the $16,329.68 offset 

from Mr. Hambrick’s gross backpay, Mr. Hambrick has 

not demonstrated that there was a factual or legal error 

in the Postal Service’s rationale for subtracting that full 

amount. 

The Postal Service, in reinstating his unused annualleave and holiday hours, concomitantly was recouping its 

payout to Mr. Hambrick for those unused hours in September 2014 upon his voluntary retirement. The gross 

amount of the September 2014 payout was $16,329.68, 

but the Postal Service withheld certain amounts before 

writing a check to Mr. Hambrick. Most importantly, it 

withheld $5,050.83 seemingly to pay to others, on his 

behalf, taxes (or other amounts) he owed on that gross 

amount. Later, when reversing the September 2014 

transaction upon his reinstatement, the Postal Service 

recouped the gross amount from Mr. Hambrick, including 

the $5,050.83 it had withheld from him and seemingly 

paid to others on his behalf. While the Postal Service has 

not here elaborated on the logic of its full recoupment, 

neither has Mr. Hambrick established that the Postal 

Service was wrong in doing so—which seems to leave to 

Mr. Hambrick the task of determining whether he is 

entitled to recoup any of the $5,050.83 from those (e.g., 

tax authorities) to whom it was paid, now that the September 2014 transaction has been unwound. 

As to the $307.14 that the Postal Service has also subtracted from the September 2014 payment, the Postal 

Service clearly explained that this amount was what Mr. 

Hambrick owed on an outstanding health-benefit invoice. 

Mr. Hambrick has not undermined that explanation. He

likewise has not undermined the Board’s interpretation of 

the July 7, 2015 ruling by the postal administrative 

judge—namely, that the ruling reflected no more than the 

fact that the Postal Service had already collected the debt 

by reducing the backpay award. Under that common-
HAMBRICK V. USPS 7

sense interpretation, the ruling offers Mr. Hambrick no 

support in his challenge to the amount of the backpay 

reduction.

Lastly, Mr. Hambrick has given us no basis for reviewing and setting aside the Board’s treatment of certain 

other allegations of noncompliance with the earlier settlement agreement. Such other allegations were raised 

after his petition for enforcement. The Board referred 

them for further consideration to the Board’s Washington 

Regional Office. We see no error in that Board action

regarding what amount to new allegations of noncompliance. See Hansson v. Dep’t of Navy, No. BN-0752-93-

0120-C-2, 1994 WL 161227 (MSPB Apr. 22, 1994) (“When 

a settlement agreement has been entered into the record 

for enforcement purposes and a party raises issues of 

noncompliance with the settlement agreement on review, 

those issues relating to noncompliance will be forwarded 

to the regional office for processing as a petition for enforcement.”), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

We also have no basis for disturbing the Board’s decision here in light of Mr. Hambrick’s contention that his 

salary upon reinstatement was lower than when he was 

removed. See Supp. Br. at 1–2. Mr. Hambrick did not 

present that contention in his petition for enforcement. 

Similarly, while Mr. Hambrick complains about where his 

backpay was deposited, id. at 2, we see no live issue: he 

conceded to the Board that “his contributions have been 

placed in the [a particular retirement] fund, as he requested,” Resp. App. 5–6. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of 

the Board. 

No costs.

AFFIRMED