NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ERIC WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2022-2246

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-3330-18-0427-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 22, 2023

______________________ 

ERIC WILLIAMS, North Charleston, SC, pro se.

 KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 22-2246 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 05/22/2023
2 WILLIAMS v. DEFENSE

PER CURIAM. 

Eric Williams appeals from the final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). For the following reasons, we reverse. 

BACKGROUND

In February 2018, Mr. Williams, a preference-eligible 

veteran, applied for a contract specialist position with the 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Mr. Williams submitted 

several documents with his application, including his resume, transcript, military discharge form, and Standard 

Form 50, which detailed his previous federal service as a 

contract specialist. As part of the application, Mr. Williams 

was required to complete an assessment questionnaire 

with several questions regarding his qualifications. Question 2 of the assessment read: “From the descriptions below, select the letter that BEST describes the highest level 

of education and/or experience that you fully possess in order to minimally qualify for this position. Read all of the 

statements completely before making your selection.” In 

response to Question 2, Mr. Williams selected Answer E: “I 

do not possess the required level of specialized experience 

and/or education to qualify for this position.” Because he 

selected this response, the online staffing system automatically deemed him ineligible for the position and the DLA 

did not consider the remainder of his application materials. 

Upon receiving notice that he was deemed ineligible, 

Mr. Williams filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor (DOL) alleging the DLA had violated his 

rights pursuant to the VEOA. DOL denied his claim, and 

he appealed to the Board. In an initial decision, the administrative judge determined Mr. Williams failed to show 

DLA violated his veteran’s preference rights. The Board 

Case: 22-2246 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 05/22/2023
WILLIAMS v. DEFENSE 3

affirmed with modifications.1 Mr. Williams appeals. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 the 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). We review the Board’s statutory and regulatory 

interpretations de novo. Augustine v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affs., 503 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Mr. Williams argues the DLA violated 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3311(2) by failing to credit him for all experience material 

to the position. Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. at 2–5. 

Section 3311(2) provides: “In examinations for the competitive service in which experience is an element of qualification, a preference eligible is entitled to credit . . . for all 

experience material to the position for which [he is] examined, including experience gained in religious, civic, welfare, service, and organizational activities.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3311(2). The rules implementing this statute require 

that “an agency shall credit a preference eligible . . . with 

all valuable experience.” 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d). The Board 

determined the DLA had not violated these provisions because the application instructions did not restrict Mr. Williams from considering this relevant experience in 

responding to Question 2’s inquiry of whether he 

1 The Board determined the administrative judge 

procedurally erred by failing to notify Mr. Williams that his 

hearing request was denied, failing to set a date on which 

the record would close, and denying him the opportunity to 

submit rebuttal evidence. After reviewing all of Mr. Williams’ submissions, however, the Board concluded these 

procedural errors did not prejudice his substantive rights. 

Case: 22-2246 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 05/22/2023
4 WILLIAMS v. DEFENSE

considered himself qualified. S. Appx. 3; see also S. Appx. 

14. Thus, the Board concluded, to the extent Mr. Williams 

did not consider these experiences in responding to Question 2, that error is attributable to him, not the DLA. S. 

Appx. 3. While that may be factually true, the statute and 

rules require more of the DLA. 

Section 3311(2) requires the agency to credit all experience material to the position. Kirkendall v. Dep’t of Army, 

573 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Indeed,

The court has explained that “[a]t the very least, 

‘credited’ must mean ‘considered.’” In Kirkendall, 

the agency had refused to consider military experience submitted in a document separate from an application, and the court held that the agency’s 

refusal to look at a relevant document is a statutory 

violation of § 3311(2)’s guarantee of credit for all 

material experience. Kirkendall requires not only a 

complete record, but consideration of that entire 

record.

Miller v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 818 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Kirkendall, 

573 F.3d at 1324). 

As we made clear in Kirkendall and Miller, the agency 

must consider all material experience. The DLA failed to 

do so here. It is undisputed that the DLA did not consider 

any of Mr. Williams’ application materials detailing his relevant experience, as the online staffing system automatically deemed him ineligible for the position. Although Mr. 

Williams was declared ineligible based on his response to 

Question 2, this response does not excuse the DLA’s failure 

to comply with § 3311(2). The statute requires “consideration of that entire record,” not only the response to a single 

question in an application. See id. (emphasis added). The 

DLA cannot give dispositive weight to a single questionnaire response without considering the rest of the application materials, which contained information about Mr. 

Case: 22-2246 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 05/22/2023
WILLIAMS v. DEFENSE 5

Williams’ experience. See, e.g., Kirkendall, 573 F.3d at 

1324 (holding the agency violated § 3311(2) by ignoring the 

preference-eligible veteran’s military documents submitted with his application simply because the agency’s practice required that all information be in a single document). 

In fact, the DLA’s application form expressly stated all 

questionnaire responses “are subject to evaluation and verification.” S. Appx. 21; see also S. Appx. 18 (“Your application package will be reviewed to ensure you meet the basic 

eligibility and qualifications requirements . . . .”).

While the DLA was not obligated to go beyond Mr. Williams’ application to determine whether Mr. Williams was 

qualified for the position, it was obligated to independently 

assess Mr. Williams’ qualifications based on the materials 

included in his application—materials that, in this case, all 

parties appear to agree demonstrate Mr. Williams met the 

minimum qualifications. See Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. at 6. The DLA may not abdicate its statutory and 

regulatory duty to credit a preference-eligible veteran for 

all his relevant experience by shifting the burden to Mr. 

Williams to assess his qualifications. 

We therefore reverse the Board’s final decision. The 

DLA violated Mr. Williams’ rights under VEOA, and he is 

therefore entitled to relief. To be clear, we hold only that 

the DLA violated Mr. Williams’ right to have his experience 

credited as part of his application. We express no opinion 

as to whether Mr. Williams should have been placed in a 

specific quality category in DLA’s category ranking system 

or whether he should have been awarded the job. We remand to the Board to craft the appropriate relief. See 

Kirkendall, 573 F.3d at 1325.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Mr. Williams.

Case: 22-2246 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 05/22/2023