NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3340 

MARGARET M. GARRETT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

Margaret M. Garrett, of Memphis, Tennessee, pro se. 

Calvin M. Morrow, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection 

Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were B. Chad Bungard, 

General Counsel, and Jeffrey A. Gauger, Attorney. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2008-3340 

MARGARET M. GARRETT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT0752080234-I-1. 

 ___________________________ 

 DECIDED: May 7, 2009 

 ___________________________ 

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, DYK and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

 

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Margaret Garrett appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (Board). Garrett v. United States Postal Serv., No. AT0752080234-I-1 

(M.S.P.B. June 19, 2008). The Board dismissed Ms. Garrett’s appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because she did not make a non-frivolous allegation that she was entitled to 

appeal to the Board. We affirm. 

Ms. Garrett was a window clerk for the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 

Memphis, Tennessee. She was removed for absence without leave and failure to meet 

the attendance requirements of her position. She appealed to the Board. The USPS 

moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Ms. Garrett was not 
one of the types of USPS employees that is entitled to appeal to the Board pursuant to 

39 U.S.C. § 1005(a): 

Subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 5 shall apply - (i) to any preference 

eligible in the Postal Service who is an employee within the meaning of 

section 7511(a)(1)(B) of such title; and (ii) to any other individual who - (I) 

is in the position of a supervisor or a management employee in the Postal 

Service, or is an employee of the Postal Service engaged in personnel 

work in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity; and (II) has 

completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar 

positions. 

The administrative judge (AJ) issued an order to show cause explaining this 

requirement to Ms. Garrett and directing her to file evidence and argument to prove that 

her appeal was within the Board’s jurisdiction. In response, Ms. Garrett argued that she 

was preference eligible because she was the daughter of a veteran. The Board 

considered § 1005(a) as well as other possible bases for its jurisdiction, concluded that 

there was no factual dispute bearing on the issue of jurisdiction, and ruled that it lacked 

jurisdiction over Ms. Garrett’s appeal. Following a petition for review, the initial decision 

became final on June 19, 2008. Ms. Garrett now timely petitions for review. 

The scope of the Board's jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de 

novo. Johnston v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The 

Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary, but is limited to those matters over which it has been 

granted jurisdiction by law, rule or regulation.” Id. Ms. Garrett has the burden of 

proving that the Board has jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(a)(2)(i). 

The Board has jurisdiction over USPS employees in a variety of circumstances, 

such as those enumerated by § 1005(a). For example, Ms. Garrett alleges that she is a 

preference eligible. The term “preference eligible” is defined by 5 U.S.C. § 2108(3), and 

2008-3340 2
2008-3340 3

 

although it includes certain veterans, widows of certain veterans, spouses of certain 

veterans, and so forth, it does not include children of veterans. As such, Ms. Garrett 

cannot rely on an alleged preference eligible status to establish the Board’s jurisdiction.1

 

Since she has not alleged or provided any evidence of any other basis for jurisdiction, 

we affirm the Board’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Garrett’s appeal. 

COSTS 

No costs. 

1

 Although Ms. Garrett complains that the USPS failed to respond to a 

discovery request to submit her agency file, there is no showing that such a failure 

caused any prejudice.