NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

NATHANIEL COOPER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3240 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Case No. DC1221110320-W-1. 

___________________________ 

Decided: March 12, 2012 

___________________________ 

NATHANIEL COOPER, of Charlotte, North Carolina, pro 

se. 

LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, D.C. With her on the brief were JAMES M.

EISENMANN, General Counsel, and KEISHA DAWN BELL, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

__________________________ 
COOPER v. MSPB 2

Before BRYSON, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Nathaniel Cooper petitions for review of a final order 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed 

his Individual Right of Action (“IRA”) for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Cooper resigned from his position as a Staff Accountant at the Military District of Washington on June 

28, 1993. On January 8, 2011, Mr. Cooper filed an appeal 

with the Board labeled “Individual Right of Action: Whistleblower Appeal.” As a former federal employee, Mr. 

Cooper is entitled to file an IRA with the Merit Systems 

Protection Board seeking correction of personnel action 

taken in retaliation for whistleblowing. 5 U.S.C. § 1221. 

Before an IRA may be brought, however, the claimant 

must exhaust his administrative remedies before the 

Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”). 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). 

The administrative judge who was assigned to Mr. 

Cooper’s case issued a show cause order, directing Mr. 

Cooper to show that the Board had jurisdiction over his 

claim. The order directed Mr. Cooper to file evidence and 

argument detailing each alleged protected disclosure and 

each personnel action being appealed. The order also 

directed Mr. Cooper to include a copy of his OSC complaint in order to establish that he had exhausted his 

administrative remedies before the OSC. 

In response to the order to show cause, Mr. Cooper 

submitted a copy of the letter in which the OSC advised 
3 COOPER v. MSPB

Mr. Cooper that it was closing its investigation, but he did 

not submit a copy of his OSC complaint or any other 

evidence that would show what disclosures and personnel 

actions he raised before the OSC. Accordingly, the administrative judge found that Mr. Cooper failed to show 

that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. 

The administrative judge also found that Mr. Cooper 

failed to make nonfrivolous allegations that he engaged in 

whistleblowing activity by making a disclosure protected 

under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), and that the disclosure was a 

contributing factor in the agency's decision to take or fail 

to take a personnel action against him, as defined by 5 

U.S.C. § 2302(a). See Yunus v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 

242 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The administrative 

judge found that Mr. Cooper “failed to describe the information he disclosed or identify the individual or individuals to whom his disclosures were made.” Because of those 

deficiencies, the administrative judge found that Mr. 

Cooper failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that he 

engaged in protected whistleblowing activity. In addition, 

the administrative judge found that Mr. Cooper failed to 

make a nonfrivolous allegation that his disclosures were a 

contributing factor in any agency personnel action. While 

Mr. Cooper listed various agency actions to which he 

objected, the administrative judge found that he “did not 

identify the individual or individuals he considers responsible for any of these actions or provide any evidence that 

the responsible individuals knew of his disclosures and 

that the personnel actions occurred within a period of 

time such that a reasonable person could conclude that 

the disclosures were a contributing factor in the personnel 

action.” The administrative judge therefore concluded 

that the Board lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Cooper’s 

appeal. 
COOPER v. MSPB 4

Mr. Cooper filed a petition for review, which the full 

Board denied. In its opinion denying the petition for 

review, the Board stated that it agreed with the administrative judge’s conclusion that Mr. Cooper had failed to 

show that he had exhausted his OSC remedies. The 

Board noted that Mr. Cooper had “neither submitted a 

copy of his OSC complaint nor submitted other correspondence that he exchanged with OSC enumerating the 

alleged protected disclosures and personnel actions underlying his OSC complaint.” The Board noted that the 

“OSC closure letter submitted by the appellant merely 

states that OSC was closing its file.” The Board did not 

address the other jurisdictional issues on which the 

administrative judge based her decision to dismiss the 

IRA. 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Cooper has not shown that the administrative judge committed error in ruling that Mr. Cooper 

failed to establish that he exhausted his administrative 

remedies. Mr. Cooper did not submit his OSC complaint 

to the administrative judge as directed, nor did he submit 

any other evidence that would show what was contained 

in his OSC complaint. Without the OSC complaint or 

other information regarding his submissions to the OSC, 

it is impossible to determine what disclosures he made to 

the OSC and therefore whether he exhausted his administrative remedies. The letter from the OSC in which the 

OSC advised Mr. Cooper that it was closing its investigation does not serve that purpose, because it did not identify the claims that he raised with the OSC. To 

demonstrate exhaustion of his remedies, Mr. Cooper must 

show not only that he made a complaint to OSC, but that 

the disclosures and personnel actions alleged in that 

complaint match the allegations made to the Board. 
5 COOPER v. MSPB

Because Mr. Cooper failed to show that he exhausted his 

administrative remedies, the administrative judge properly dismissed his IRA for lack of jurisdiction. 

No costs. 

AFFIRMED