UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

JAMES C. PETERS, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-831M-16-0548-I-1

DATE: July 27, 2022

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

James C. Peters, Jr., Cordova, Tennessee, pro se.

Karla W. Yeakle, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the September 28, 2016 

initial decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 14, Petition for Review 

(PFR) File, Tab 1. During later discussions with a Board Settlement Attorney, 

the appellant submitted an April 2017 letter withdrawing his petition for review 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

and stating his understanding that the Board would dismiss the petition for review 

with prejudice to refiling. PFR File, Tab 5 at 1. The appellant’s letter included a 

statement signed by the agency’s representative, declaring that the agency had no 

objection to the appellant withdrawing the petition for review. Id. at 2-3. 

¶2 Subsequently, in June 2018, the Clerk of the Board informed the parties 

that, pursuant to a May 11, 2018 Delegation of Authority, the Clerk of the Board 

had been “delegated authority to grant a petitioner’s request to withdraw his 

petition for review.” PFR File, Tab 7 at 1. That order noted the appellant’s 

April 2017 submission withdrawing his petition for review and informed the 

appellant that, consistent with the May 11, 2018 Delegation of Authority, he was 

ordered to submit a confirmation of his request to withdraw his petition for 

review. Id. at 2. The appellant did not respond.

¶3 On August 1, 2018, the Clerk of the Board issued a second order in which it 

noted the appellant’s failure to respond to the June 2018 order, and stated that,

“[i]f the appellant wishes the Clerk of the Board to grant his request to withdraw 

his petition for review, he must respond” within 7 days. PFR File, Tab 8 at 1. 

That order also stated that, “[i]f the appellant does not file a pleading confirming 

his intent, the Clerk of the Board will not act on his request to withdraw the 

petition for review, and the Board will instead issue a decision following the 

restoration of a Board quorum.” Id. at 1-2.

¶4 The appellant again did not respond. Thereafter, the Clerk of the Board 

issued an order informing the parties that, “[i]n light of the appellant’s failure to 

confirm his intent to withdraw the petition for review, the Office of the Clerk of 

the Board will take no further action to process the appellant’s request to 

withdraw the petition for review under the May 11, 2018 policy.” PFR, File, 

Tab 9 at 1 (emphasis removed). The order further informed the parties that the 

petition for review would be returned to the Board for consideration, and that the 

Board would issue a decision on the appellant’s petition for review following the 

restoration of a Board quorum. Id. at 1-2.
3

¶5 Accordingly, now that a Board quorum has been restored, we can act on the 

matters presented on review. While the appellant did not avail himself of the 

option of having the Clerk of the Board dismiss his petition for review as 

withdrawn pursuant to the May 11, 2018 Delegation of Authority, we discern no 

reason not to give effect to the appellant’s April 2017 withdrawal. As noted 

previously, during discussions with a Board Settlement Attorney, the appellant 

submitted a document stating his desire to withdraw his petition for review and 

his understanding that, as a result, the Board would dismiss his pe tition for 

review with prejudice to refiling at a later time. PFR File, Tab 5 at 1. As also 

noted, the agency provided a statement that it does not object to the withdrawal of 

the petition for review. Id. at 2-3. Finding that withdrawal is appropriate under 

these circumstances, we DISMISS the petition for review as withdrawn with 

prejudice to refiling.

¶6 The initial decision of the administrative judge is final. This is the Board’s 

final decision in this matter. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 

1201.113 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113). 

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS2

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By 

statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such 

review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). 

Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit 

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most 

appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a 

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their 

jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should 

 

2

Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated 

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the 

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
4

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all 

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time 

limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum. 

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review 

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions 

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you 

should contact that forum for more information. 

(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking 

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court 

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). 

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the 

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

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, 10, 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. The 

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that 

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 
5

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of 

discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you 

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action 

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain 

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination 

claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you 

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a 

representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before 

you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days

after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of 

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling 

condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and 

to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective 

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

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

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding 

all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the 

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, 

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file 

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision. 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the 

address of the EEOC is: 
6

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or 

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised 

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or 

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). 

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s 

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in 

section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 

2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial 

review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court 

of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 3The court of appeals must receive your 

petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). 

 

3

The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain 

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on 

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on 

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of 

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195, 

132 Stat. 1510. 
7

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the 

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

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, 10, 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. The 

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that 

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

Contact information for the 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.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

 /s/ for 

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board