NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3165

JEFFREY JONES, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
Jeffrey Jones , of Gainesville, Florida, pro se. Sara B. Rearden , Attorney, Office of the Gener al Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for responden t. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel , Deputy General Counsel, and Jeffrey Gauger , Acting Associate General Counsel. Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3165 JEFFREY JONES, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: September 6, 2007

__________________ _________ Before RADER and MOORE, Circuit Judges , and YEAKEL, District Judge ∗

. PER CURIAM. The Merit Systems Protection Board ("B oard") dismissed Mr. Jeffery Jones's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jeffrey Jones v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs , MSPB Docket No. AT-315H-06-1056-I-1 ( Initial Decision , September 14, 2006; Final Order , January 24, 2007). Because the Board properly dismissed Mr. Jones's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, this court affirms

. I Mr. Jones received a career-conditional appointment to an agency housekeeping aid position on April 16, 2002. The career conditional appointment was subject to a one-year probationary period. The Departm ent of Veterans Affairs terminated Mr.

∗ Honorable Lee Yeakel, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.Jones from the housekeeping aid posit ion, effective July 14, 2006. Initial Decision , slip op. at *3. Thereafter, on August 22, 2006, Mr. J ones filed an appeal to the Board. Although Mr. Jones's appeal was filed eight days late, the Board considered Mr. Jones's appeal on the merits. In its in itial decision, the Board found that Mr. Jones was serving in the probationary period of employment at the time of his termination. Id . The Department of Veterans Affairs terminated Mr. Jones due to his conduct after receiving the appointment. The Board's initial decisio n became final after th e Board denied Mr. Jones's petition for review. Final Decision

. II The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary, but rather limited to matters specifically entrusted to it by law, rule or regulation. 5. U.S.C. § 7701(a); Todd v. Merit Systems Protection Board , 55 F.3d 1574, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Mr. Jones has the burden of establishing jurisdiction before the Board by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2); Yates v. Merit Syst ems Protection Board , 145 F.3d 1480, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Jurisdiction is a que stion of law that this cour t reviews without deference. Fields v. Dep’t of Justice , 452 F.3d 1297, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board’s decision to dismiss Mr. Jones ’s appeal must be affirmed unless Mr. Jones establishes that the decision is (1) arbi trary, capricious, an abus e 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); Yates , 145 F.3d at 1483.

2007-3165 22007-3165 3 The Administrative Judge ("AJ") co rrectly cited the applicable statutes, regulations and case law with respect to t he termination of an em ployee within the oneyear probationary window. Specifically, "[a] terminated probationary employee has no statutory right of app eal to the Board." Initial Decision ; citing 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(a); Mastriano v. Federal Av iation Administration , 714 F.2d 1152, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A probationary employee only has a limited regulat ory right of appeal. This limited right must be based on partisan political reasons or on marital status discrimination. 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b); see McCloud v. Dep't of the Navy , 33 M.S.P.R. 643, 646 (1987). Therefore, a probationary empl oyee must put forth a non-fr ivolous claim of either partisan political reasons or marital status discrimination for employ ment termination to prove jurisdiction by the Board. See Stokes v. Fed. Aviation Admin. , 761 F.2d 682, 685- 86 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In Mr. Jones's appeal to the Board and his appeal to this court, he did not put forth any reasons for his termination based on partisan politics or marital status discrimination. Thus, the Board’s decisio n to dismiss Mr. Jones's appeal for lack of jurisdiction was not arbitrary, capricious , an abuse of discretion, or obtained without procedures required by law, ru le, or regulation. Accordi ngly, this court affirms the Board’s decision.