NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-3232 

ARDRENA A. BURNETT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

Ardrena A. Burnett, of Sugar Land, Texas, pro se. 

Stephanie M. Conley, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States 

Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the 

brief were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General 

Counsel, and Calvin M. Morrow, Acting Associate General Counsel. 

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

 2007-3232 

ARDRENA A. BURNETT, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

DECIDED: October 22, 2007 

 __________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Ardrena A. Burnett, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the decision 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1

 We 

affirm. 

 

1 Burnett v. U.S. Postal Serv., MSPB Docket No. DA3443060569-I-1 (April 6, 

2007). 
2007-3232 2 

 BACKGROUND 

Ms. Burnett worked as a Mail Handler at the United States Postal Service's General 

Mail Facility in Houston, Texas. The Postal Service removed her from employment on 

August 26, 2005, on the ground that she submitted a false workers' compensation claim. 

On May 3, 2006 Ms. Burnett filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board 

alleging that the agency wrongfully removed her, violated her restoration rights, and denied 

her a within-grade increase. 

Before the Board Ms. Burnett moved to add a claim that her removal violated the 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 

U.S.C. '4301 et seq. USERRA prohibits discriminatory treatment in employment because 

of an employee's military service and provides for appeal to the Board. The administrative 

judge directed that the USERRA claim be docketed as a separate appeal. 

The administrative judge then issued an Order to Show Cause in the separate 

appeal, stating that Ms. Burnett's file contained no evidence of military service as required 

to bring an action under USERRA, and directing her to provide evidence "including a DD214 or other documentation that might establish her service, if any, in the military." Ms. 

Burnett's response did not include any evidence of military service and did not address the 

issue. The Postal Service submitted documents from Ms. Burnett's personnel records as 

evidence that she lacked prior military service and had no pending obligation to perform 

military service. The administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and 

the full Board denied review. This appeal is from that judgment. 
2007-3232 3 

 DISCUSSION 

We review the decision of the Board to determine whether it was arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained 

without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation; or unsupported by substantial 

evidence. See 5 U.S.C. '7703(c); Cheeseman v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 140 

(Fed. Cir. 1986). Whether the Board has jurisdiction to receive an appeal is a question of 

law, and receives plenary review. Hayes v. United States Postal Serv., 390 F.3d 1373, 

1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Ms. Burnett argues that USERRA applies not only to employees who performed 

military service but also to federal employees who suffered an injury or disability "in the line 

of duty," the "duty" being any federal employment. She states that 5 C.F.R. Part 353, 

which relates to appeal rights, applies equally to USERRA and to 5 U.S.C. '8151 appeals, 

and thus that all federal employees are included. However, Ms. Burnett misconstrues the 

statute and regulation, for although 5 C.F.R. '353.101 contains regulations applying to 

appeals under either USERRA or 5 U.S.C. '8151, USERRA appeals are available only to 

employees who meet the requirement of military service. 

Ms. Burnett does not allege that she performed "military duty" or had an obligation to 

do so. She has not contradicted the Postal Service's documentation of her lack of military 

service. The Board's conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction by way of USERRA is 

correct. The Board's dismissal of the appeal is affirmed. 

No costs.