UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

NANCY J. HERMELER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DE-0752-13-0255-X-1

DATE: February 11, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL∗

John Hermeler, Tolleson, Arizona, for the appellant.

Alfred Steinmetz, Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision finding the 

agency in partial noncompliance with the parties’ settlement agreement in the 

underlying removal appeal. MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0255-C-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 ∗ A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

Compliance Initial Decision (CID) (Nov. 4, 2013). For the reasons discussed 

below, we now find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for 

enforcement. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in 

this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 

1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)). 

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE

¶2 On July 10, 2013, the administrative judge issued an initial decision 

dismissing the appellant’s appeal of her removal as settled. MSPB Docket No. 

DE-0752-13-0255-I-1, Initial Decision at 1 (July 10, 2013). Neither party filed a 

petition for review, and the initial decision became the final decision of the 

Board.

¶3 Following the appellant’s petition for enforcement, the administrative judge 

found the agency in partial noncompliance with the settlement agreement and 

ordered it to take various actions to come into full compliance. CID at 7. 

Specifically, the administrative judge ordered the agency to mail the appellant 

documents reflecting that the agency cancelled her removal and substituted her 

voluntary resignation. CID at 7. On December 3, 2013, the agency submitted 

evidence of purported compliance. MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-13-0255-X-1, 

Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1. The appellant did not file a response, 

despite the Board’s January 6, 2015 order advising her that failure to respond 

would likely result in dismissal of her petition for enforcement. See CRF, Tab 3 

at 1.

¶4 Because the agency has submitted evidence of purported compliance and 

the appellant has not challenged it, we now find the agency in compliance, 

assume the appellant is satisfied, and dismiss the petition for enforcement.
3

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney 

fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of 

the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The 

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If 

you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees 

WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You 

must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision 

on your appeal.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

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

States 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 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 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 
4

States 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 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.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your court 

appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of 

attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for 

Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. 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.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board