UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

EMESE GLORIA JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency,

and

PENNY NIELSEN

Intervenor.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-0831-14-0699-I-1

DATE: February 10, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Emese Gloria Jackson, Birmingham, Alabama, pro se.

Roxann Johnson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

FINAL ORDER

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

dismissed her appeal as withdrawn. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one 

only when: the initial decision contains 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). 

¶2 The appellant, through her attorney, filed an appeal of the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM)’s final decision finding her ineligible to receive a 

lump-sum benefit under the Civil Service Retirement System based on the death 

of a former federal employee. 2

 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. The 

administrative judge scheduled the requested hearing, id., Tab 16, but, prior to the 

designated date, the appellant’s attorney submitted “Appellant’s Motion to 

Dismiss Appeal,” id., Tab 18, whereupon the administrative judge dismissed the 

appeal as withdrawn, id., Tab 19, Initial Decision at 1, 2.

 2 The administrative judge notified the individual to whom the benefit was awarded of 

her potential right to participate in the appeal as an intervenor. IAF, Tab 7. She 

requested to intervene, id., Tab 8, and the administrative judge granted her request for 

permissive intervention, id., Tab 9.
3

¶3 The appellant has timely filed a pro se petition for review, Petition for 

Review (PFR) File, Tab 1, to which both the agency and the intervenor have 

responded, id., Tabs 4-5. 

¶4 An appellant’s withdrawal of an appeal is an act of finality which removes

the appeal from the Board’s jurisdiction. Page v. Department of Transportation, 

110 M.S.P.R. 492, ¶ 5 (2009). A voluntary withdrawal must be clear, decisive, 

and unequivocal. Id. The record reflects that the appellant’s designated 

representative unequivocally expressed her intent to withdraw the appeal. IAF, 

Tab 18.

¶5 On review, the appellant contests the merits of OPM’s decision to deny her 

benefits, PFR File, Tab 1 at 1-3, but she does not challenge the administrative 

judge’s dismissal of her appeal as withdrawn or otherwise allege that the 

withdrawal was involuntary. Cf. Sofio v. Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 

667, 670 (1981) (the appellant is responsible for the errors of his chosen 

representative). We therefore find that the administrative judge did not err in 

dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. See Lincoln v. U.S. Postal Service, 

113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶¶ 7-8 (2010). To the extent that the appellant may now wish 

to contest OPM’s decision on the merits, any such wish does not constitute 

grounds for review. 3

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:

 3 Based on our disposition, we need not consider the numerous documents the appellant 

has submitted on review which bear on the merits of OPM’s decision.
4

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 

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
5

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