UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MATHEW SENULIS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DE-0752-19-0337-I-1

DATE: September 26, 2022

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Carson Bridges, Esquire and Tyler J. Sroufe, Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the 

appellant.

Ryan W. Burton, Lakewood, Colorado, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

Member Limon recused himself and 

did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the August 25, 2020 initial 

decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 47, Initial Decision; Petition for 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

Review (PFR) File, Tab 3. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the 

appeal as settled.

¶2 After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document 

entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant on 

November 11, 2020, and by the agency on November 13, 2020. PFR File, Tab 5. 

The document provides, among other things, that the appellant agreed to 

withdraw the above-captioned MSPB appeal in exchange for the promises made 

by the agency. Id. at 5. 

¶3 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the 

parties have entered into a settlement agreement, whether they understand its 

terms, and whether they intend to have the agreement entered into the record for 

enforcement by the Board. See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 

146, 149 (1988). In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the 

record for enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the 

agreement is lawful on its face and whether the parties freely entered into it. See 

Massey v. Office of Personnel Management, 91 M.S.P.R. 289, ¶ 4 (2002), 

overruled on other grounds by Delorme v. Department of the Interior, 

124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 11-21 (2017) (holding that the Board may enforce 

settlement agreements that have been entered into the record, independent of any 

prior finding of Board jurisdiction over the underlying matter being settled). 

¶4 Here, we find that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and 

that they understand its terms. We further find that the parties do not intend to 

enter the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement by the Board, as 

the agreement instead provides that the parties will seek compliance through the 

equal employment opportunity procedures set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504.

2

 

 

2

In response to an e-Appeal prompt when submitting the settlement agreement in this 

appeal, the agency indicated that the parties agreed that the settlement agreement would 

be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. PFR File, Tab 5 at 3. 

However, the settlement agreement itself provides that allegations of noncompliance 
3

PFR File, Tab 5 at 8; see Grubb v. Department of the Interior, 76 M.S.P.R. 639, 

642-43 (1997) (finding that the parties intended for the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, not the Board, to enforce a settlement agreement that 

provided for enforcement in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504). As the 

parties do not intend for the Board to enforce the settlement agreement, we need 

not address the additional considerations regarding enforcement and do not enter 

the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement by the Board. 

¶5 In light of the foregoing, we find that dismissing the appeal “with prejudice 

to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate 

under these circumstances. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113). 

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS3

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 

 

will be processed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504. Id. at 8. As the words of the 

agreement itself are of paramount importance in determining the intent of the parties at 

the time they contracted, we find that the parties did not intend the settlement 

agreement to be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board but instead for the 

appellant to pursue enforcement through the alternate process specified in the 

agreement. See Greco v. Department of the Army, 852 F.2d 558, 560 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

3

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 tha t 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. 4 The 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). 

 

4

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