NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALTHEA POE-HENDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3138

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-0752-13-0037-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: November 6, 2014

______________________ 

ALTHEA POE-HENDERSON, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pro se. 

SARA B. REARDEN, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, 

DC, for respondent. With her on the brief was BRYAN G.

POLISUK, General Counsel. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.
2 POE-HENDERSON v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Althea Poe-Henderson appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which 

dismissed her petition as untimely filed without a showing of good cause for the delay. Poe-Henderson v. Dep’t of 

Defense, MSPB Dkt No. PH-0752-13-0037-I-1 (June 6, 

2014) (Final Order). Because the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in declining to waive the filing deadline, and its 

findings on untimeliness are supported by substantial 

evidence, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2012, Ms. Poe-Henderson filed an appeal with the Board, challenging her removal from her 

position as a Supply Cataloger for the Defense Industrial 

Supply Center of the Department of Defense. She indicated that she worked for the Defense Department from 

1985 until October 10, 1990, and she alleged that her 

departure was involuntary. Because the filing period for 

Ms. Poe-Henderson’s case began on her departure date of 

October 10, 1990, but her appeal was filed several years 

late on October 18, 2012, the administrative judge ordered her to show good cause existed for the delay. In her 

response, she failed to provide the exact year that she 

learned she had been terminated, stating instead that she 

did not learn of her termination until the “summer of 

199[blank].” Respondent’s Appendix (R.A.) 21. She also 

stated that she had been under a psychiatrist’s care since 

1980 due to a nervous breakdown, and that the administrative judge should call her psychiatrist. When the 

administrative judge directed her to submit evidence of 

the year she was terminated and any additional medical 

information she wished to provide, Ms. Poe-Henderson 

did not respond.

On December 19, 2012, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing Ms. Poe-Henderson’s 

appeal as untimely filed, given the inadequate explana-
POE-HENDERSON v. MSPB 3

tion for her over 20-year delay. The initial decision stated 

that it would become final on January 23, 2013, unless 

Ms. Poe-Henderson filed a petition for review by that 

date. 

She did not petition the Board to review the initial decision until January 24, 2014, over one year later. The 

Clerk of the Board instructed Ms. Poe-Henderson that, 

under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g), her untimely petition must 

be accompanied by a motion showing good cause for the 

untimely filing, or the Board may dismiss the petition as 

untimely. She did not respond to the Clerk’s notice on 

timeliness or offer any reason for the delay, and the Board 

dismissed her petition for review on June 6, 2014. Final 

Order at 4; R.A. 9. Ms. Poe-Henderson appealed, and we 

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

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision to dismiss a petition for review as untimely unless the decision 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); Walls v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 29 F.3d 

1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

In this case, a petition for review of the initial decision, issued on December 19, 2012, must have been filed 

by January 23, 2013. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Ms. 

Poe-Henderson did not file her petition for review until 

one year later. The Board may waive or extend the time 

limit for filing a petition for review when the petitioner 

shows good cause for the untimeliness. Walls, 29 F.3d at 

1581. To determine whether the petitioner has shown 

good cause for an untimely filing, the Board considers a 

non-exclusive list of factors, including the length of the 

delay, whether the petitioner was notified of or aware of 

the time limit, the reasonableness of her excuse and
4 POE-HENDERSON v. MSPB

showing of due diligence, whether she is proceeding pro 

se, and whether she has submitted evidence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to 

comply or a showing of unavoidable casualty or misfortune. Id. at 1582.

The initial decision provided clear notice of the time 

limit, stating that any petition for review must be filed by 

January 23, 2013. Although the Clerk of the Board 

afforded Ms. Poe-Henderson the opportunity to show good 

cause, she has offered no explanation for her one-year 

delay. In her brief, she stated only that she “had been 

mentally ill since the beginning of employment with [the 

Defense Department]” in 1985. Petitioner’s Informal Br. 

Item 4. The Board has held that it will find good cause 

for waiving the filing deadline where a party shows that 

she suffered from an illness affecting her ability to file on 

time. See Lacy v. Dep’t of the Army, 78 M.S.P.R. 432, 437 

(1998). To do so, the party must submit medical or other 

corroborating evidence showing that she suffered from the 

illness during that time period. Id. at 432. Ms. PoeHenderson has presented no evidence to show that she 

suffered from any illness during the time when she could 

have filed a timely petition—that is, from December 19, 

2012, to January 23, 2013. She has not explained how 

her illness prevented her from timely filing her petition 

for review with the Board before January 23, 2013. 

Accordingly, Ms. Poe-Henderson has not shown that 

the Board abused its discretion in declining to waive the 

time limit for filing a petition for review or that the 

Board’s factual findings on untimeliness are unsupported 

by substantial evidence. Thus, the Board’s decision to 

dismiss her petition as untimely filed is 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.