Office of Personnel Management Petitions for Reconsideration

of Non-Precedentiai Merit Systems Protection Board Decisions

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to petition the Merit Systems Protection Board to reconsider a non-precedential decision of the Board only if the Director concludes 

that such decision has a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy 

directive.

September 13, 1999

M e m o r a n d u m O p i n i o n f o r t h e G e n e r a l C o u n s e l

F e d e r a l R e t i r e m e n t T h r i f t In v e s t m e n t B o a r d

This responds to your request for our opinion concerning petitions for 

reconsideration of certain “ non-precedential” decisions issued by presiding officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“ MSPB” ). These decisions dispose 

of personnel disputes without publication of an opinion or statement explaining 

the legal basis of the decisions. See Letter for Mr. Randolph Moss, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from John J. O ’Meara, General 

Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Nov. 6, 1998) ( “ FRTIB 

Letter” ). As explained in your letter, the Office of Personnel Management 

(“ OPM” ) has taken the position that it is legally barred from petitioning for 

reconsideration of such decisions, which effectively precludes the possibility of 

appealing such decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Your office disagrees with OPM’s position on this issue.

Following our consideration of submissions from your office and OPM,1 we 

conclude that (1) under the governing provisions of 5 U.S.C.A. § 7703(d) (West 

Supp. 1999) and 5 C.F.R.§ 1201.119(a)(2) (1997), OPM may petition for 

reconsideration of an MSPB decision only if the OPM Director determines, in 

her discretion, that such decision will have a substantial impact on a civil service 

law, rule, regulation, or policy directive; (2) the Director has statutory authority 

to petition for reconsideration of non-precedential MSPB decisions if the Director 

concludes in the good faith exercise of her discretion that the decision has a 

substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive; and

(3) the Director also is vested with discretion under the statute to determine that 

non-precedential MSPB decisions per se fail to satisfy the substantial impact 

standard and therefore may not be the subject of a petition for reconsideration 

under the authority of 5 U.S.C. A. § 7703(d).

1 See FRTIB Letter; Letter for Randolph M oss, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from LorTaine 

Lewis, General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management (Jan. 15, 1999) (“ OPM Letter” ); Letter for Randolph 

Moss, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from John J. O ’Meara, General Counsel, Federal 

Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Feb. 5, 1999) (“ FRTIB Letter II” ) In addition to these written submissions, 

representatives of this Office met with representatives of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board and OPM 

on March 11, 1999, to consider oral presentations on the issues in question.

202
OPM Petitions fo r Reconsideration o f Non-Precedential MSPB Decisions

I.

Federal employees aggrieved by personnel decisions of their employing agencies 

may seek relief by appealing to the MSPB. See 5 U.S.C.A. §7701 (1994). The 

MSPB may either hear such appeals itself or refer them to an administrative law 

judge or other presiding official it has designated to hear such cases. Id.

§ 7701(b)(1). In cases in which the interpretation of the federal civil service laws 

is in issue, the OPM Director may intervene as of right, “ as early in the proceeding as practicable,” provided that she determines that an erroneous decision 

would have a substantial impact on any civil service law, rule, or regulation under 

OPM’s jurisdiction. Id. § 7701(d)(1).

When the MSPB issues a ruling adverse to an employing agency, the agency 

itself is not authorized to seek reconsideration or to appeal. Rather, under 5 

U.S.C.A. § 7703(d), only OPM is authorized to petition on behalf of federal agencies for judicial review of MSPB decisions. As the statute provides:

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management may obtain 

review of any final order or decision of the Board by filing . . . 

a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit if the Director determines, in his discretion,

that the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or

regulation affecting personnel management and that the Board’s

decision will have a substantial impact on u civil service law, rule,

regulation, or policy directive. If the Director did not intervene in 

a matter before the Board, the Director may not petition fo r review

o f a Board decision under this section unless the Director first petitions the Board fo r a reconsideration of its decision, and such petition is denied.

Id. (emphasis added).

Thus, as a precondition to seeking judicial review, the OPM Director must first 

determine in her discretion “ that the Board erred in interpreting a civil service 

law, rule, or regulation affecting personnel management and that the Board’s decision will have a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or 

policy directive.” Id. In MSPB cases in which OPM has not previously intervened, 

moreover, OPM may petition for judicial review only if it has first filed an 

unsuccessful petition for reconsideration with the MSPB. See Newman v. Corrado,

897 F.2d 1579, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1990).2 Consequently, unless OPM files a petition

2 In some instances, the MSPB has denied reconsideration of issues raised by OPM on the grounds that the issues 

raised did not satisfy the above-quoted standards of 5 U S C .A § 7703(d). See Homer v. Bum s, 783 F.2d 196, 

198 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (discussed further, infra). As discussed in Point II.B, infra, however, the Federal Circuit’s

Continued

203
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

for reconsideration in cases in which it has not intervened, an MSPB ruling 

adverse to a government agency is final and unappealable.

Under MSPB procedures, certain cases are disposed of by MSPB presiding officials without written explanation or review by the full Board. The MSPB refers 

to such decisions as ‘ ‘non-precedential’ ’ decisions because they are not considered 

to be binding on the MSPB in future cases. MSPB treats non-precedential 

decisions as p er se lacking a substantial impact on the civil service laws or regulations within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.A. § 7703(d), and that treatment has been 

upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all 

appeals from the MSPB. See Horner v. Burns, 783 F.2d at 201. In reliance on 

the Bums opinion, moreover, OPM asserts that it will not and cannot petition 

for reconsideration — and therefore cannot petition for judicial review — of any

MSPB non-precedential decision. As OPM has explained its position:

[T]he MSPB’s practice of issuing non-precedential decisions that 

are insulated from OPM-initiated judicial review has been upheld 

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the 

court that reviews MSPB decisions. H om er v. Bums, 783 F.2d 196,

200 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Based upon that precedent, OPM is unable

to exercise its statutory authority to seek reconsideration and

judicial review o f the MSPB’s non-precedential Order in this case.

Letter for Hon. Roger W. Mehle, Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift 

Investment Board, from Janice R. Lachance, Director, Office of Personnel 

Management (June 3, 1998) (emphasis added). OPM has reaffirmed this position 

in a letter to this Office, stating:

OPM is prohibited from seeking reconsideration of a non-precedential MSPB decision because, by virtue of the Federal Circuit’s decision in H om er, it may not lawfully make the substantial impact 

determination required by law to permit reconsideration and judicial 

review.

OPM Letter at 7.

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (“ FRTIB” ), in contrast, contends that OPM retains discretionary authority to petition the MSPB for 

reconsideration of its decisions whether they are precedential or not. See FRTIB 

Letter at 2-3. Among other things, the FRTIB contends that some non-precedential 

decisions issued by the MSPB do have a substantial impact on the civil service 

laws and that the Bums opinion, which the FRTIB believes is applicable only

opinion m Newman v Lynch, 897 F.2d 1144, 1146 (Fed. Cir 1990), sharply circumscribes the MSPB’s authority 

to “ pass judgm ent” on OPM ’s discretionary decisions to seek reconsideration of MSPB decisions.

204
OPM Petitions fo r Reconsideration o f Non-Precedential MSPB Decisions

to petitions for judicial review (as opposed to administrative reconsideration), does 

not prohibit the OPM Director from exercising her discretion to petition for 

reconsideration of such decisions. See id. at 2-3; FRTIB Letter II at 3. Additionally, the FRTIB disagrees with OPM’s view that the sole purpose of petitions 

for reconsideration of MSPB decisions is to satisfy a prerequisite to judicial 

review. In the FRTIB’s view, petitions for reconsideration serve the additional 

important purpose of affording the MSPB an opportunity to correct errors without 

the necessity of judicial review. See FRTIB Letter at 2-3.

n.

A.

Apart from § 7703(d)’s provision that the submission and denial of a petition 

for reconsideration of an MSPB decision is a prerequisite to judicial review in 

cases where OPM did not intervene before the MSPB, the statute provides no 

express standards governing when OPM may submit petitions for reconsideration 

or under what circumstances they may be granted. See 5 U.S.C.A. §§7701-7703. 

Indeed, § 7703(d)’s judicial review provisions contain the statute’s only reference 

to, or provision for, the reconsideration procedure. To resolve the questions presented here, we must first determine whether the statute nonetheless is fairly read 

to incorporate a substantial impact standard as a prerequisite for seeking 

reconsideration as well as judicial review. We believe that il is.

Initially, a requirement that OPM must make a substantial impact determination 

as a prerequisite to petitioning for reconsideration of MSPB decisions is logically 

consistent with the overall statutory scheme. Such a determination is a prerequisite 

not only to OPM’s seeking intervention or petitioning for MSPB review of an 

initial decision, see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(d)(1)(B) and (e)(2), but also to OPM’s petitioning for judicial review of final MSPB decisions. In this regard, we note that 

an OPM petition for reconsideration in a case where it has not previously intervened is essentially a belated form of seeking both intervention and administrative 

review. Because the statute requires a substantial impact determination as a prerequisite to each of those procedural steps, it would be anomalous if that requirement could be bypassed only when OPM seeks to enter the case through a petition 

for reconsideration. Consequently, we agree with OPM that a substantial impact 

determination is required as a precondition to its petitioning for reconsideration 

under § 7703(d).

To be sure, the text of 5 U.S.C.A. § 7703(d) does not specify that OPM may 

file a petition for reconsideration of an MSPB decision only if that decision, in 

keeping with the standards for seeking judicial review, “ will have a substantial 

impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive.” In contrast, 

as noted above, the statutory provisions governing both OPM’s right to intervene

205
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

in proceedings before the MSPB and its right to petition the full MSPB for review 

of an initial decision explicitly require an OPM determination that the case in 

question meets the substantial impact test. See id. § 7701(d)(1)(B) and (e)(2). It 

might therefore be argued that the absence of a “ substantial impact” determination requirement in §7703(d)’s provision for petitions for reconsideration reflects 

a conscious congressional choice to omit such a requirement, given that Congress 

knew how to, and did, make explicit provision for such a requirement in the case 

of other procedural steps before the MSPB.

Viewing the statutory scheme as a whole, however, we do not believe that this 

factor should be considered dispositive in this context. Cf. 2A Norman J. Singer, 

Sutherland on Statutory Construction §47.25 (5th ed. 1992) (the interpretive 

maxim “ expressio unius est exclusio alterius” should not be applied if its application would result in a contradiction or would not serve the purpose for which 

a statute was enacted). In providing in § 7703(d) that a petition for reconsideration 

would be a prerequisite to OPM’s obtaining judicial review of MSPB decisions 

in cases in which it had failed to seek intervention, Congress did not purport 

to establish the particular procedural requirements that would govern the filing 

and consideration of petitions for reconsideration. Rather, Congress merely specified that OPM lacks authority to seek judicial review in a non-intervention case 

unless it seeks reconsideration and that request is denied. In contrast, Congress 

did undertake to establish specific procedural requirements in its statutory provisions for intervention and petitions for administrative review by the full MSPB. 

See 5 U.S.C. § 7701(d)(1) and (e). Congress’s greater specificity in addressing 

these actions, however, does not imply that Congress intended different procedures 

to apply when OPM seeks reconsideration, and the structure of the Act supports 

the view that the same substantial impact requirements should apply.

The conclusion that a substantial impact determination is required for petitions 

for reconsideration is also consistent with the Senate Report accompanying the 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978:

A Committee amendment to this subsection limits the occasions 

on which the OPM could petition the Board for review to only 

those instances where the OPM director first determines that the 

decision is erroneous and that, if allowed to stand, the decision 

would have a substantial impact on the administration of the civil 

service laws within OPM’s jurisdiction. The OPM should limit the 

cases in which it seeks the review by the Board to those that are 

exceptionally important.

S. Rep. No. 95-969, at 55 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723, 2777. 

The respective functions of OPM petitions for review and petitions for reconsideration are so similar that it seems unlikely that Congress intended for them to

206
OPM Petitions fo r Reconsideration o f Non-Precedential MSPB Decisions

be governed by differing procedural standards in this respect. Further, because 

§ 7703(d) refers to OPM petitions for reconsideration by MSPB solely in the context of establishing the preconditions to seeking judicial review, logic and consistency suggest that the threshold standards for pursuing reconsideration should 

reflect the minimum standards for pursuing an appeal.3

This interpretation of the statute also accords with the MSPB regulations governing OPM’s submission of petitions for reconsideration. Those regulations 

provide:

(a) Criteria. Under 5 U.S.C. 7703(d), the Director of the Office 

of Personnel Management may file a petition for reconsideration 

of a Board final order if he or she determines:

(1) That the Board erred in interpreting a civil service 

law, rule, or regulation affecting personnel management, and

(2) That the Board’s decision will have a substantial

impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy

directive.

5 C.F.R. 1201.119 (1997) (emphasis added).4 MSPB’s rule requiring a substantial 

impact determination by OPM represents a reasoned interpretation of the statute 

to which OPM properly adheres, even if it goes beyond matters of procedure 

and touches on the exercise of OPM’s discretion. Moreover, although the statute 

(as discussed below) places the decision to seek reconsideration within OPM’s

discretion, the MSPB has a critical role in interpreting the statute, and OPM 

plainly may choose to follow the MSPB’s reasoned interpretations even of OPM’s 

discretionary powers.

Accordingly, we conclude that the OPM Director must determine that an MSPB 

decision satisfies the substantial impact test before she may properly file a petition 

for reconsideration of such decision. We now consider how the OPM Director’s

3 As the MSPB explained its interpretation in one opinion1

Such a petitition [for reconsiderationj is a prerequisite for judicial review, and the statute does not establish 

a different standard for . . reconsideraUon. Like a petition for judicial review, a petiuon by OPM for 

reconsideration must allege that it will have a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation 

or policy directive.

Hammond v. Department o f Navy, 50M S.P.R . 174, 178 (1991)

4 In the absence of specific statutory provisions governing petitions for reconsideration of MSPB decisions, the 

agency charged with administration of the statute is generally authorized to fill in the interstices of the statutory 

scheme through administrative rulemaking See, e .g , Public Service Co. v. US. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 582 

F 2 d 77, 82 (1st Cir 1978) (“ In a regulatory scheme where substantial discreUon is lodged with the administrative 

agency charged with its effectuation, it is to be expected that the agency will fill in the interstices left vacant by 

Congress ” ); Precious Metals A ssocs, Inc. v». CFTC, 620 F 2d 900, 911 (1st Cir. 1980) (agency rulemaking proceedings “ are designed to fill in the interstices of a statute” ) In particular, judicial deference to agency rules “ is 

especially applicable” when the agency is “ structuring its own rules of procedure and methods of inquiry ” Kelley

v. Selin, 42 F.3d 1501, 1511 (6th Cir. 1995).

207
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

discretion in making that substantial impact determination is affected by the nonprecedential status of the decision.

B.

In Newman v. Lynch, 897 F.2d at 1145-47, the Federal Circuit endorsed a broad 

interpretation of OPM’s authority to petition for, and to obtain, meaningful 

reconsideration of MSPB decisions under 5 U.S.C.A. § 7703(d). In that case, the 

MSPB had upheld a discharged federal employee’s allegations of discrimination 

on the basis of handicap. OPM filed a petition seeking reconsideration of the 

MSPB’s decision, contending that the MSPB’s finding that the employee had carried his burden of proposing a “ reasonable accommodation” for his disability 

was inconsistent with prior MSPB decisions and erroneous as a matter of law. 

897 F.2d at 1145. The MSPB, however, refused to consider OPM’s petition on 

the merits, ruling that the decision in question “ did not concern a civil service 

law’ ’ and that OPM therefore lacked authority to petition for reconsideration under 

the requirements of § 7703(d).

The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that “ the MSPB has no authority to 

review the Director’s exercise of discretion in seeking reconsideration of an MSPB 

decision” and rejecting “ the Board’s effort to restrict OPM with respect to what 

issues fall under OPM’s authority granted in section 7703(d).” Id. at 1145-46. 

As the court further explained: “ The portion of section 7703(d) granting OPM 

the right to seek reconsideration by the Board would be emasculated if the Board 

may refuse reconsideration without addressing the merits of the substantive issues 

raised by OPM.” Id. at 1147. The Newman opinion also emphasized the narrow 

scope of the court’s prior holding in H om er v. Bums, noting that the Bums court 

“ meticulously limited the scope of its decision,” and stressing that “ [w]e did 

not recognize the broad authority now asserted by the Board to pass judgment 

on the propriety of the [OPM] Director’s exercise of discretion in seeking 

reconsideration.” 897 F.2d at 1146.5

Under the Lynch opinion, the MSPB lacks authority to circumscribe OPM’s 

discretion in determining whether or not a particular MSPB decision may satisfy 

the substantial impact standard. In light of the broad discretionary authority 

allotted to OPM under Newman's analysis, we believe that OPM may properly 

determine that even a non-precedential MSPB decision may have a “ substantial 

impact’ ’ in particular circumstances.

5 See also Newman v. Corrado, where the court invoked the legislative history of § 7703(d) in explaining the 

purpose and significance of petitions for reconsideration filed by OPM

The Senate Report [on 5 U.S.C § 7703(d)] certainly suggests that something more than the equivalent 

of a functus officio response was contemplated in Board proceedings. The petition fo r reconsideration

by OPM, in the words o f the Senate Report, provides "an opportunity to consider the concerns o f OPM ."

See S. Rep. No. 95-985, supra at 2786.

897 F 2d at 1582 (emphasis added).

208
OPM Petitions fo r Reconsideration o f Non-Precedential MSPB Decisions

The MSPB itself has recognized OPM’s discretion in determining whether the 

statutory prerequisites to intervening, appealing, or petitioning for reconsideration 

are satisfied. In Uhlig v. Department o f Justice, 70 M.S.P.R. 443 (1996), for 

example, the Board stated:

We cannot . . . decline to consider the merits of the Director’s 

intervention brief on the grounds that we disagree with his discretionary determination that the Board erred in interpreting a civil 

service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive and that the Board’s 

decision will have a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, 

regulation, or policy directive.

Id. at 445.

It is difficult to reconcile the foregoing precedents with the view that the 

MSPB’s interpretation of the substantial impact test takes away OPM’s discretion 

to find that a given non-precedential decision may in fact have a substantial impact 

on a civil service law, rule, or policy directive, and therefore warrant filing a 

petition for reconsideration. Such a view would preclude OPM from exercising 

the discretion recognized in the foregoing opinions, as well as in the MSPB’s 

own regulation, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.119(a). That regulation authorizes the OPM 

Director to file a petition for reconsideration when “ he or she” — not the 

MSPB — determines that a decision will have the requisite substantial impact. Neither that regulation nor the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Bums provides that the 

Director may make that discretionary determination only if it comports with the 

MSPB’s interpretation of the substantial impact test. Such an interpretation would 

also be inconsistent with Lynch’s holding that the MSPB may not “ pass judgment 

on the propriety of the Director’s exercise of discretion in seeking reconsideration.” 897 F.2d at 1146. Just as the MSPB may not foreclose OPM’s authority 

to petition for reconsideration by “ determin[ing] which civil service laws fall 

within the responsibility of OPM,” id. (citing H om er v. Schuck, 843 F.2d 1368, 

1372 (Fed. Cir. 1986)), we do not believe it can do so by usurping OPM’s 

authority to make its own discretionary determinations regarding the substantial 

impact standard.

Although the MSPB has itself acknowledged the broad discretion allowed OPM 

under the Lynch opinion, it has pointedly reserved the right to “ question” OPM’s 

authority in submitting petitions for reconsideration of non-precedential decisions:

Noting its previous decisions which had rejected restrictive 

interpretations of OPM’s authority to seek reconsideration under 

section 7703(d), the [Lynch] court concluded that the Board may 

not refuse to consider the Director’s petition on the merits because 

it disagrees with the Director’s discretionary determinations which

209
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

the Director is required to make before filing the petition. Therefore, in accordance with the court’s decision, we hold that, with

the exception o f petitions f o r reconsideration o f nonprecedential

decisions, the Board may not question the authority of the Director 

of OPM to seek reconsideration of a Board decision, but must consider the Director’s petition on the merits.

Hammond, 50 M.S.P.R. at 179-80 (1991) (emphasis added; citations and footnote 

omitted).6

The MSPB’s opinion in Hammond asserts its authority to refuse reconsideration 

of non-precedential decisions “on the merits.” It does not establish that OPM 

lacks authority tosubmit such a petition as a predicate to seeking judicial review 

before the Federal Circuit under § 7703(d). In this regard, we consider it significant that the Bum s opinion upheld the MSPB’s rule denying reconsideration of 

non-precedential decisions on the carefully qualified grounds that it was “ based 

upon sound policy considerations” and was an “ appropriate practice for the Board

to utilize in handling its heavy volume of cases.” 783 F.2d at 201 (emphasis 

added). The court did not, however, hold that the MSPB was required to follow 

that interpretation on the grounds that it was the only permissible interpretation 

of the statutory substantial impact standard. Nor did the court consider or decide 

whether, as an objective matter, a non-precedential decision could never have a 

“ substantial impact on civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive” from 

the distinct perspective of the OPM Director (as opposed to the “ case management” perspective of the MSPB). Hammond, 50 M.S.P.R. at 178.

Thus, we do not believe that Bum s prohibits the OPM Director from petitioning 

for reconsideration of a decision that she in good faith determines will, in fact, 

have the requisite substantial impact. An MSPB presiding officer might decide 

without explanation, for example, that a major, newly adopted agency personnel 

management policy directive was unlawfully applied to a particular employee. 

Although the policy directive would not be legally invalidated due to the nonprecedential nature of the decision, the decision might well deter agency managers 

from adhering to the policy directive and thus seriously undermine its future 

application and utility. In the event that the OPM Director were to determine 

that the decision had a substantial impact on the policy directive under the circumstances, we do not believe she would be legally barred from submitting a 

petititon for reconsideration in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C.A. 

§ 7703(d) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.119. Ultimately, then, the decision whether a nonprecedential MSPB decision has a substantial impact on the civil service laws 

or regulations so as to justify an OPM petition for reconsideration rests solely

6 In support of this reservation, the Board asserted that H om er v Bum s had upheld the rule “ that reconsideration 

of nonprecedential decisions is inappropriate “ 50 M S P.R. at 180 n 4. The Bum s decision, however, did not establish 

or uphold any rule precluding OPM from seeking reconsideration of non-precedential decisions of the MSPB. It 

narrowly addressed the permissibility of the standards applied by MSPB in disposing of petitions for reconsideration

210
OPM Petitions fo r Reconsideration o f Non-Precedential MSPB Decisions

in the discretion of OPM. The Director is not legally precluded from petitioning 

for reconsideration of a non-precedential decision that she believes has such an 

impact; nor is she required to do so. Although we recognize that non-precedential 

decisions are generally unlikely to have a substantial impact on civil service laws, 

rules, regulations, and policies, we must also recognize that the OPM Director 

might legitimately conclude that, in certain unique circumstances, the requirement 

is satisfied.

C.

In H om er v. Burns, the court upheld the MSPB’s practice of denying petitions 

for reconsideration of unreviewed initial decisions of MSPB presiding officials 

on the grounds that such decisions are not “ precedents of the Board” and therefore, for purposes of 5 U.S.C. § 7703(d), “ would not have a significant impact 

upon civil service laws, rules, regulations, and policies.” 783 F.2d at 199. As 

the court explained:

The Board’s treatment of unreviewed initial decisions of presiding officials as non-precedential is based upon sound policy 

considerations and is a reasonable and appropriate practice for the 

Board to utilize in handling its heavy volume of cases. . . .

.... The Director has not given any convincing reason why 

this practice of the Board is not an appropriate and proper method 

for the Board to use in handling its large docket.

Id. at 201.

As we have shown, § 7703(d) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.119(a) vest the OPM Director 

with broad discretion in determining whether to pursue an appeal from, or a petition for reconsideration of, an MSPB decision. In exercising that discretion, we 

believe the Director is free to follow the MSPB’s interpretation of the substantial 

impact test upheld in Bums and adopt a per se rule that non-precedential MSPB 

decisions do not satisfy that test and therefore cannot provide justification for 

a petition for reconsideration. Indeed, insofar as the Director concludes that nonprecedential decisions, by their very nature, do not satisfy the substantial impact 

standard, a practice of declining to seek reconsideration of non-precedential 

decisions would appear to conform to the governing MSPB regulation, see 5

C.F.R. §1201.119. As discussed in Point II.B, however, we do not believe that 

such a conclusion is legally compelled by statute or case law.

211
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

Conclusion

OPM may petition for reconsideration of an MSPB decision only if the OPM 

Director determines that the decision will satisfy the substantial impact standard. 

Although the Director may exercise her discretion to adopt a per se rule that 

non-precedential MSPB decisions never satisfy the substantial impact standard, 

the H om er v. Bums opinion does not dictate such a practice nor prevent the 

Director from exercising her statutory discretion to determine on a case-by-case 

basis whether that standard is satisfied on the particular facts of each nonprecedential decision.

RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

212