UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

JOHN PAUL JONES, III
, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DE

- 3330

- 15

- 0334

- I

- 1

DATE: February 2, 2016



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

John Paul Jones, III , Albuquerque, New Mexico, pro se.

Matthew M. Vince , Washington , D.C., 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 denied his request for corrective action under Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;

1 A nonprecedential order is one tha t the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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

the initial decision is base d on an erroneous interpretation of statute or 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. Se e 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 b asis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. 2
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).

NOTICE TO THE APPELL ANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final O rder, constitutes the

Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113

. You have the right to

2 We have considered the appellant’s argume nts on review, most of which pertain to the agency’s actions in his prior VEOA appeals and his analysis of the Board’s obligations to veterans, and we find no basis for disturbing the initial decision. Petition for Review Fil e, Tab 1. On review, the appe llant also asks the Board to consider whether the “systematic refusal of Agency judges to provide [him] a hearing” is reprisal for taking action against the agency for violating his rights under VEOA. Id

. a t 22. To the extent that the appellant is claimi ng that the Board’s administrative judges are biased against him , his allegations are insufficient to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity that accompanies administrative adjudicators. See Oliver v. Department of Transportation
, 1 M.S.P.R. 382 , 386 (1980). To the extent that the appellant is attempting to raise a generic retaliation claim under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, by a rguing that the agency retaliated against him in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 230 2 (b)(9) for exercising appeal rights , the Board has no jurisdiction under VEOA to consider this claim. See Ruffin v. Department of Treasury
, 89 M.S.P.R. 396 , 401 ( 2001) (VEOA only provides the Board with the authority to determine whether an agency has violated a statutory or regulator y provision relating to
veteran preference ).3

request review of this final d ecision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the court at the following address: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your requ est for review no later than 60 calendar days

after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 770 3 (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 need further information about your right to appeal this decision to court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this r ight. It is found in

title 5 of the U.S. 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 U.S. Code, at our
website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm . Additional information is
available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov . Of particular relevance

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

within the court’s Rules of Practice , and Forms 5, 6, and 11. 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 . The4

Merit Systems Protection Boar d neither endorses the ser vices provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will a ccept representation in a given case.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. ______________________________ William D. Spencer Clerk of the Board