UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

CARLA R. BLUMER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

CH-315H-14-0579-I-1

DATE: October 30, 2014 

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Carla R. Blumer, Oregon, Wisconsin, pro se.

Jack R. Jakubiak, Esquire, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which 

dismissed her probationary termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, 

we grant petitions such as this one only when: the initial decision contains 

 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous 

interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to 

the facts of the case; the 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. See 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, and based on the following 

points and authorities, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any 

basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. 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). 

BACKGROUND

¶2 Effective June 30, 2013, the agency appointed the appellant to a 

career-conditional position in the competitive service as a GS-06 Medical 

Reimbursement Technician, subject to her completion of a 1-year probationary 

period. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 7. By letter dated May 12, 2014, the 

agency notified the appellant of its decision to terminate her effective May 16, 

2014, for failure to meet her performance expectations. Id. at 8-10. 

¶3 The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging her probationary termination 

and requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1. The appellant alleged that she did not 

receive the required training to “obtain optimal productivity.” Id. at 5. In an 

acknowledgement order, the administrative judge informed the appellant of the 

limited Board appeal rights of probationary employees and ordered her to submit 

evidence or argument to establish why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack 

of a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 2. The appellant did not 
3

file a response to the order. The agency moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 4 at 4-6.

¶4 Without holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge dismissed 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 5, Initial Decision (ID). The 

administrative judge found that the appellant did not have the right to appeal her 

termination because, at the time of her termination, she was a probationary 

employee with less than 1 year of current continuous service, and she did not 

allege that the agency discriminated against her based on partisan political 

reasons or marital status, or that her termination was based on pre-employment 

matters. ID at 2-3.

¶5 The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) 

File, Tab 1. The agency has not responded to the petition for review.

ANALYSIS

The Board need not consider the appellant’s arguments regarding the merits of 

her appeal.

¶6 In her petition for review, the appellant argues the merits of her case, 

reiterating her argument from below that she did not receive proper training. PFR 

File, Tab 1; IAF, Tab 1 at 5. However, these arguments are not relevant to the 

issue currently before the Board—whether the Board has jurisdiction over this 

appeal. See Fassett v. U.S. Postal Service, 76 M.S.P.R. 137, 139 (1997) 

(arguments on review that address the merits of the agency’s removal action, 

rather than the Board’s jurisdiction over the appeal, do not meet the criteria for 

review).

The administrative judge correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶7 It is undisputed that, at the time of her termination, the appellant was a 

probationary employee in the competitive service with less than 1 year of current

continuous service. IAF, Tab 1 at 1, 3, Tab 4 at 7. Consequently, the appellant 

could only bring an appeal of her termination under limited circumstances. 
4

Blount v. Department of the Treasury, 109 M.S.P.R. 174, ¶ 5 (2008); 5 C.F.R. 

§§ 315.805, 315.806.

¶8 As the administrative judge explained, the appellant does not allege any of 

these circumstances, such as that the agency discriminated against her based on 

partisan political reasons or marital status, or that her termination was based on 

pre-employment matters. ID at 3. Therefore, the administrative judge correctly 

found that the Board does not have jurisdiction over this 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 

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 
5

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