NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RENATA M. LACHIEWICZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3052

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-0752-10-0490-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 5, 2014 

______________________ 

RENATA M. LACHIEWICZ, of Chicago, Illinois, pro se. 

LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, 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 NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
2 LACHIEWICZ v. MSPB

PER CURIAM.

Renata Lachiewicz seeks review of the decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), dismissing her 

petition as untimely filed and forwarding her claims 

alleging breach of a settlement agreement to the appropriate regional office. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Lachiewicz was employed as an immigration officer in the Vermont Service Center of the Department of 

Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“agency”). On May 17, 2010, the agency

removed Ms. Lachiewicz from her position. Ms. 

Lachiewicz appealed the removal to the Northeastern 

Regional Office of the Board, but entered into a settlement agreement with the agency before the appeal was 

heard. The administrative judge reviewed the agreement 

and concluded that the parties had understood and voluntarily entered into it. Ms. Lachiewicz’s removal appeal

was then dismissed based on the settlement agreement.

The Board’s decision stated: “This initial decision will 

become final on September 29, 2010 unless a petition for 

review is filed by that date or the Board reopens the case 

on its own motion.” Respondent’s Appendix (“R.A.”) 2. It 

also stated that Ms. Lachiewicz could file a petition for 

enforcement with the regional Board office after the 

decision became final, if she had reason to believe the

agency was not complying with the agreement. 

More than two years later, on December 19, 2012, Ms. 

Lachiewicz filed a petition for review asking the Board to 

reopen her removal appeal. She alleged that she had 

entered into the agreement as a result of duress and that 

the agency had not complied with the agreement. Ms. 

Lachiewicz filed a motion requesting a waiver of the time 

limit for her review petition based on mental impairment 

and physical injuries. The Board denied Ms. Lachiewicz’s 
LACHIEWICZ v. MSPB 3

motion, explaining that she did not identify the period 

during which she was impaired, did not provide evidence 

of her medical condition or explain why such evidence was 

unavailable, and did not describe the effects of her medical condition. The Board found that she had alleged 

breach of the agreement, but that these allegations did 

not constitute grounds for waiving the filing time limit. 

The Board dismissed the petition for review of the Board’s 

dismissal as untimely filed. The Board forwarded Ms. 

Lachiewicz’s claims that the agency was not complying 

with the agreement to the regional office for adjudication. 

Ms. Lachiewicz petitioned this court for review of the 

Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

Our scope of review in an appeal from a Board decision is limited. Paine v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 467 F.3d 

1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 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); see also Rocha v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 688 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2012); 

Paine, 567 F.3d at 1346. A petitioner “bears a ‘heavy 

burden’ to overturn the Board’s determination that good 

cause has not been shown for her untimely filing.” Turman-Kent v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 657 F.3d 1280, 1282 

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Zamot v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

332 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) & citing Mendoza v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 F.3d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

(en banc)). 

A petition for review of a Board decision must be filed 

within 35 days of the decision’s issuance or within 30 days 

of the petitioner’s receipt of the decision if the petitioner 
4 LACHIEWICZ v. MSPB

shows that she received the decision more than 5 days 

after it issued. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e); see

5 U.S.C § 7701(e)(1). If the petition is filed late, the Board 

may waive the time limit if the petitioner establishes good 

cause for the delay. Rocha, 688 F.3d at 1310; Zamot, 332 

F.3d at 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To obtain a waiver, a petitioner must provide “[t]he reasons for failing to request an 

extension before the deadline for the submission, and a 

specific and detailed description of the circumstances 

causing the late filing, accompanied by supporting documentation or other evidence.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). 

Although the Board’s regulations do not define the circumstances that constitute good cause, relevant considerations include: 

the length of the delay; whether appellant was notified of the time limit or was otherwise aware of 

it; the existence of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant which affected his ability to 

comply with the time limits; the degree to which 

negligence by the appellant has been shown to be 

present or absent; circumstances which show that 

any neglect involved is excusable neglect; a showing of unavoidable casualty or misfortune; and the 

extent and nature of the prejudice to the agency

which would result from waiver of the time limit.

Alonzo v. Dep’t of Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980) 

(footnotes omitted); see also Walls v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

29 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Alonzo, 4 

M.S.P.R. at 184). With respect to delays allegedly resulting from medical impairment, the Board has held that 

petitioners must “affirmatively identify medical evidence 

that addresses the entire period of delay and explain how 

the illness prevented a timely filing.” Ford-Clifton v. Dep’t 

of Veteran Affairs, 661 F.3d 655, 659 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

(affirming Board where there was “no accompanying 

explanation of how th[e] condition [deep vein thrombosis] 
LACHIEWICZ v. MSPB 5

prevented a timely filing” (citing Jerusalem v. Dep’t of the 

Air Force, 107 M.S.P.R. 660, 663, aff’d, 280 Fed. App’x 973 

(Fed. Cir 2008); Lacy v. Dep’t of Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434, 

437 (1998)); see also Turman-Kent, 657 F.3d at 1282 (“The 

Board did not abuse its discretion in demanding a welldocumented explanation of the cause for [the petitioner’s

six-year] delay in filing her appeal.”). 

Here, the Board found that Ms. Lachiewicz did not 

establish good cause. We see no error in that determination. Ms. Lachiewicz asserted only that she “suffered []

temporary mental instability, as an effect of losing her 

job” and “also sustained physical injuries, due to the on 

the job accident, on February 02, 2010.” R.A. 76. She did 

not identify evidence related to her alleged mental and 

physical impairment. She did not provide any information 

about the duration or dates of her alleged medical problems and did not explain how they prevented her from 

filing a timely petition. 

The Board did not err in finding that Ms. Lachiewicz 

did not establish good cause for waiving the time limit for 

her petition based on her claims regarding the settlement 

agreement. The Board recognized that good cause might 

exist based on newly-discovered evidence establishing the 

invalidity of the settlement agreement, but Ms. 

Lachiewicz did not raise such an argument or present 

such evidence before the Board and has not done so before 

this court on appeal. 

The Board also did not err in forwarding Ms. 

Lachiewicz’s claims of breach of the settlement agreement 

to the regional office. The governing regulations permit

parties to petition the Board “for enforcement of the terms 

of a settlement agreement that has been entered into the 

record for the purpose of enforcement in an order or 

decision under the Board's appellate jurisdiction.” 5 

C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). But “[t]he petition must be filed 
6 LACHIEWICZ v. MSPB

promptly with the regional or field office that issued the 

initial decision.” Id. The Board has held that “[w]here 

allegations of noncompliance are raised for the first time 

before the full Board, the Board will forward the submission to the appropriate regional office for adjudication as 

a petition for enforcement.” Harris v. U.S. Postal Serv., 59 

M.S.P.R. 222, 225 (1993) (citing Sharkey v. Dep’t of 

Transp., 56 M.S.P.R. 156, 158 (1992); Davis v. Dep’t of 

Navy, 55 M.S.P.R. 109, 112 (1992)). Ms. Lachiewicz has 

not established any abuse of discretion by the Board in 

sending her breach claims for adjudication by the regional 

office. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.