UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

NANCY O. GEEHAN,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBERS

PH-1221-16-0014-W-1

PH-0752-15-0239-I-2

DATE: December 19, 2016

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Chungsoo J. Lee, Feasterville, Pennsylvania, for the appellant.

Suzanne K. Roten, Esquire, and Arlene R. Yang, Esquire, San Diego, 

California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

granted her request to dismiss her appeals. Generally, we grant petitions such as 

this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material 

fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or 

 

* A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 
2

regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the 

administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial 

decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of 

discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and 

material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due 

diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully 

considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not 

established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. 

Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, 

which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

¶2 In these joined appeals, the parties reached an agreement pursuant to which 

the appellant agreed, among other things, to dismiss both appeals with prejudice. 

Geehan v. Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-16-0014-W-1, 

Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 24; Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3-12. 

The administrative judge granted the appellant’s request. IAF, Tab 25, Initial 

Decision (ID). The initial decision specifically reflects that the parties settled 

these appeals pursuant to a written agreement. ID at 2. The parties did not 

request the Board to enter their settlement agreement into the record for 

enforcement and they instead look to the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) regarding such issues, expressly invoking EEOC regulations 

to govern any compliance issues with their agreement. ID at 2 n.*; IAF, Tab 24

at 9; PFR File, Tab 1 at 9. 

¶3 In her petition for review, the appellant requests that the Board dismiss the 

appeal “as settled” because she contends that a dismissal worded thusly, as 

opposed to the voluntary withdrawal described in the initial decision, “are two 

very different dispositions.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 1; ID at 2. In this case however, 
3

because the parties do not seek to enter the agreement into the record for the 

purposes of enforcement, it is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of 

the language employed by the administrative judge in exercising this ministerial 

function, the record reflects that he honored the appellant’s request, through

which the appellant therefore fulfilled her agreement with the agency to dismiss 

her appeal with prejudice to its refiling. ID; IAF, Tab 24 at 7; PFR File, Tab 1

at 10. Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition for review and affirm the 

initial decision dismissing the appeal with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ 

settlement agreement. 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar 

days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court 

has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory 

deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. 

See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

If you want to request review of the Board’s decision concerning your 

claims of prohibited personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), 

(b)(9)(A)(i), (b)(9)(B), (b)(9)(C), or (b)(9)(D), but you do not want to challenge 

the Board’s disposition of any other claims of prohibited personnel practices, you 

may request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The court of 

appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days after the date of this 

order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose 

to file, be very careful to file on time. You may choose to request review of the 

Board’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other 
4

court of appeals of competent jurisdiction, but not both. Once you choose to seek 

review in one court of appeals, you may be precluded from seeking review in any 

other court. 

If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to 

court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in

title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the 

United States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm. 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is 

available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance 

is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained 

within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, and 11. Additional 

information about other courts of appeals can be found at their respective 

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at 

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation 

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The 

Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any 

attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board