N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CHRISTOPHER HARVEY H ARE, 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

______________________

C HRISTOPHER H ARVEY H ARE , Abingdon, MD, pro se.

M OLLIE L ENORE F INNAN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represen ted by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., R EGINALD T. B LADES , J R

.

______________________

Before M OORE , O’M ALLEY , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges.HARE v. NCUA 2

P ER C URIAM

. 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 re asons discussed below, w e dis miss for lack of jurisdiction

. B ACKGROUND On February 12, 2014, NCUA posted a vacancy for a Regional Lending Specialist. Mr. Hare timely applied for the vacancy, clai ming eligibility for five

- point veterans’ preference. In April 2014, NCUA assessed all o f 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 fu rther 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 agree ing w ith NCUA that Mr. Hare was not preference eligib le because his application lacked sufficient evidence of his active duty military service. Mr. Hare again appealed to the Board. A n administrative judge conducted a hearing on the meri ts of Mr. Hare’s eligibility for veterans’ prefe rence. In an initial decision issued on June 19, 2015, the Board found Mr. Hare preference eligi ble and ordered NCUA to reconstruct the hiring process for the vacancy, taking into account a five

- point veterans’ prefer ence for Mr. Hare.
NCUA reconstructed the hiring process and granted Mr. Hare a five

- point preference. In a letter dated J u-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). Specifical ly, NCUA explained that it could not determine whether his “experience included the specific risk analysis and expe rtise 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

. D ISCUSSION 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 reta liated against him for enforcing his five

- point veterans’ preference. He complain s that the Board “failed to pr ovide 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 reconstruct ion decision

. Such an appeal is not proper in this court. Instead, Mr. Har e f irst needs to appeal to the Board.
Mr. Hare appears to have been confused by the Board’s remand order, which contained an instruction onHARE v. NCUA 4

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 do ctrine.

C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs.