UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

CHAD MICHAEL BROCK,

Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-1221-16-0285-W-1

DATE: October 21, 2016

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Chad Michael Brock, Atlanta, Georgia, pro se.

Jeffrey Wilson, Atlanta, Georgia, 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 

dismissed his individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Initial 

Appeal File, Tab 1; Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons 

discussed below, we DISMISS the petition for review as settled. 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

¶2 After filing the petition for review, the appellant submitted a document 

titled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant, a union 

official, and an agency official on August 31, 2016. PFR File, Tab 4. The parties 

entered into the agreement during the arbitration of grievances filed by the 

appellant and his union against the agency concerning the appellant’s 

employment. Id. at 4. The document provides, among other things, for the 

withdrawal and dismissal with prejudice of all actions against the agency arising 

from the appellant’s employment, including any appeal under the Whistleblower 

Protection Act and any other appeal pending before the Merit Systems Protection 

Board. Id. at 4-5. 

¶3 Before dismissing an appeal based on a settlement agreement, the Board

must document for the record that the parties reached a settlement agreement, 

understood its terms, and agreed whether it was to be enforceable by the Board. 

Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 148‐49 (1988). We find here 

that the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement and that they 

understand the terms. See PFR File, Tab 4 at 8. We further find that the parties

agreed that the settlement agreement was not to be enforced by the Board and 

specified an alternative resolution process in the event of an alleged breach. Id. 

at 6-9; PFR File, Tab 5 at 4. We therefore find that the parties did not agree to 

have the agreement entered into the record for Board enforcement. 2

 

¶4 Accordingly, based on the appellant’s withdrawal of his petition for review 

pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, we hereby dismiss the petition for 

 2 The appellant indicated in her online interview that the parties wanted the agreement 

to be entered into the record for enforcement purposes, although the terms of the 

settlement agreement indicate otherwise. PFR File, Tab 4 at 3. We conclude that the 

pro se appellant merely intended to enter a copy of the agreement into the record to 

notify the Board that his pending petition for review should be dismissed as settled. Id.

at 6. Subsequent to the submission of the settlement agreement, the parties submitted a 

Stipulation of Dismissal indicating that “they fully understand, acknowledge and agree 

that the Board will not accept the settlement agreement into the record for 

enforcement . . . .”
3

review with prejudice to refiling (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this 

petition). PFR File, Tab 4 at 5; see Lapine v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

114 M.S.P.R. 436, ¶ 4 (2010). 

¶5 This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. 

Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113).

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 

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.
4

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