NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER HARVEY HARE,

Petitioner

v.

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3214

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-3443-14-0638-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 21, 2016

______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER HARVEY HARE, Abingdon, MD, pro se.

MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.
2 HARE v. NCUA

PER CURIAM. 

Christopher Harvey Hare appeals from the decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) ordering 

the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”) to 

reconstruct the hiring process for the CU-0580-13/14 

Regional Lending Specialist position taking into account 

Mr. Hare’s five-point veterans’ preference. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2014, NCUA posted a vacancy for a 

Regional Lending Specialist. Mr. Hare timely applied for 

the vacancy, claiming eligibility for five-point veterans’ 

preference. In April 2014, NCUA assessed all of the 

candidates but found no candidate qualified, and the 

vacancy was closed with no selection. Mr. Hare was not 

given veterans’ preference and was not referred for further consideration. 

Mr. Hare promptly appealed NCUA’s decision on 

preference eligibility to the Board and to the Department 

of Labor (“DOL”). The Board found that Mr. Hare had not 

exhausted his administrative remedies, and therefore 

dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Shortly 

thereafter, DOL issued a final decision agreeing with 

NCUA that Mr. Hare was not preference eligible because 

his application lacked sufficient evidence of his active 

duty military service. Mr. Hare again appealed to the 

Board. An administrative judge conducted a hearing on 

the merits of Mr. Hare’s eligibility for veterans’ preference. In an initial decision issued on June 19, 2015, the 

Board found Mr. Hare preference eligible and ordered 

NCUA to reconstruct the hiring process for the vacancy, 

taking into account a five-point veterans’ preference for 

Mr. Hare. 

NCUA reconstructed the hiring process and granted 

Mr. Hare a five-point preference. In a letter dated Ju-
HARE v. NCUA 3

ly 15, 2015, NCUA wrote to Mr. Hare that it declined to 

pass his application forward to the selecting official 

because his resume “lacked sufficient detail regarding 

[his] experience as it relates to the specialized experience 

requirements of [the] position.” Pet’r’s Informal Br., Ex. 

6A (“Letter of Non-Selection,” Jul. 15, 2015). Specifically, 

NCUA explained that it could not determine whether his 

“experience included the specific risk analysis and expertise required by the position.” Id. 

Mr. Hare did not appeal this agency action to the 

Board. Instead, on August 31, 2015, Mr. Hare filed an 

appeal with this court. 

DISCUSSION

We cannot review agency decisions directly. By law, 

our jurisdiction is limited to review of agency decisions 

from the Board. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); see also Patterson 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 111 F. App’x 590, 593 (Fed. Cir. 

2004) (holding that we could not consider petitioner’s

appeal of the agency’s reconstruction decision, where that 

petitioner had not first appealed to the Board).

On appeal, Mr. Hare argues that the agency has retaliated against him for enforcing his five-point veterans’

preference. He complains that the Board “failed to provide remedies or procedures after the reconstruction.” 

Pet’r’s Informal Br. 1. He asks that this court “evaluate 

the [Board] decision related to enforcement of my 5PT VA 

preference, and evaluate the evidence that qualifies me as 

a GS-12 for ‘Regional Lender Specialist.’” Pet’r’s Informal 

Br. 1. 

We interpret Mr. Hare’s appeal to be a challenge to 

the agency’s reconstruction decision. Such an appeal is 

not proper in this court. Instead, Mr. Hare first needs to 

appeal to the Board. 

Mr. Hare appears to have been confused by the 

Board’s remand order, which contained an instruction on 
4 HARE v. NCUA

how to appeal to us. A. 19. We note that the timing for 

appealing the agency’s reconstruction decision to the 

Board has run. The Board can consider whether to accept 

such a late-filed appeal under its equitable tolling doctrine. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.