UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

CYRIL DAVID DANIEL ORAM, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-3330-17-0098-I-1

DATE: September 8, 2022

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Cyril David Daniel Oram, Jr., Bellingham, Washington, pro se.

Troy R. Holroyd, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

found that the Board had jurisdiction over his Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA) appeal but denied his request for corrective 

action. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

circumstances: 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 administrative 

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. 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, 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. Except as expressly MODIFIED by 

this Final Order to find that the Board has jurisdiction over the appellant’s appeal 

as a right-to-compete claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B), we AFFIRM the 

initial decision.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The appellant, a preference-eligible veteran, applied for a GS-12 

Information Technology Specialist position with the agency under job 

announcement number DLAJ6-16-1778879-MP. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 

at 11-18, Tab 9 at 11-12. On September 30, 2016, the agency notified the 

appellant that he was not selected for the position. IAF, Tab 1 at 10-11. The 

appellant subsequently filed a timely complaint with the Department of Labor’s 

(DOL) Veterans’ Employment and Training Service claiming violation of his 

veterans’ preference rights in connection with his nonselection for the position. 

Id. at 12. Finding no violation, DOL issued a letter notifying the appellant that it 

was closing its investigation into his complaint and advising him of his right to 

appeal its decision to the Board. Id. at 13-15.
3

¶3 The appellant timely filed an appeal with the Board. IAF, Tab 1. In an 

initial decision based on the written record, the administrative judge found that 

the Board had jurisdiction over the appellant’s appeal pursuant to VEOA,

5 U.S.C. § 3330a, but denied the appellant’s request for corrective action on the 

merits, finding that the agency did not violate his rights under the Act. IAF,

Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 9-10.

¶4 The appellant has filed a timely petition for review. Petition for Review 

(PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response, and the appellant has filed a 

reply. PFR File, Tabs 3-4.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

¶5 On review, the appellant alleges that he was improperly denied his 

requested hearing, and asserts that the administrative judge erred in determining 

that his veterans’ preference rights were not violated by the agency’s decision not 

to select him. PFR File, Tab 1. The appellant also argues that he was denied the 

right to “apply and/or compete,” and he submits what he describes as previously 

unavailable evidence—copies of two vacancy announcements for which he 

applied but was not selected. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 4 at 4-19.

The administrative judge did not err by deciding the appeal without holding a 

hearing.

¶6 Although the appellant concedes that his initial appeal form does not reflect 

a request for a hearing, he asserts that he is “pretty sure” that he “specifically 

raised the issue and requested a hearing” below and argues that he was denied his 

right to a hearing. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. The record reflects that the appellant 

checked the box indicating that he did not want a hearing on his initial appeal 

form. IAF, Tab 1 at 2. In an acknowledgement order dated November 10, 2016, 

the administrative judge advised the appellant that a failure to request a hearing 

within 10 days of the date of that order would constitute a waiver of his right to a 

hearing. IAF, Tab 2 at 2. In an order on jurisdiction, also issued on 
4

November 10, 2016, she also notified the appellant that after meeting his burden 

of proving jurisdiction, he would be granted a hearing if he requested one and

only if there remained a genuine dispute of material fact. IAF, Tab 3 at 7-8. The 

appellant filed a reply to the administrative judge’s order on jurisdiction the same 

day both the acknowledgement and jurisdictional orders were issued, but he did 

not indicate that he wanted a hearing in that filing. IAF, Tab 4. On 

November 30, 2016, however, he requested to “proceed to the hearing on 

substantially previously founded jurisdiction” in a response to the agency’s 

motion to dismiss the appeal. IAF, Tab 11 at 4.

¶7 Thus, while it appears that the appellant expressed a desire for a hearing, he 

did not do so within the time limit proscribed by the administrative judge’s 

acknowledgement order. The Board has held that an appellant waives his right to 

a hearing when, after being specifically placed on notice of his requirement to 

request one, he fails to do so in a timely manner. Nugent v. U.S. Postal Service, 

59 M.S.P.R. 444, 446-47 (1993) (finding no error in an administrative judge’s 

denial of the appellant’s request for a hearing allegedly made for the first time 

during a telephonic status conference, more than 10 days after the 

acknowledgement order informing the appellant of his requirement to request a 

hearing). Additionally, the Board has held that there is no right to a hearing in an 

appeal brought pursuant to VEOA when, as here, there is no genuine dispute of 

material fact and one party must prevail as a matter of law. Montgomery v. 

Department of Health & Human Services, 123 M.S.P.R. 216, ¶ 13 (2016); 

Williamson v. U.S. Postal Service, 106 M.S.P.R. 502, ¶¶ 8-9 (2007); see 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.23(b). Accordingly, we find that the administrative judge did not err by 

deciding the appellant’s VEOA appeal on the merits without holding a hearing.

The administrative judge did not err in denying the appellant’s request for 

corrective action under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A).

¶8 The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been 

given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation. Maddox v. Merit Systems 
5

Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). To establish Board 

jurisdiction over an appeal brought under VEOA, an appellant must show that he

exhausted his administrative remedy with DOL and make nonfrivolous allegations 

of the following: (1) he is a preference eligible within the meaning of VEOA; 

(2) the action at issue took place on or after the October 30, 1998 enactment date 

of VEOA; and (3) the agency violated his rights under a statute or regulation 

relating to veterans’ preference. See Miller v. Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, 121 M.S.P.R. 88, ¶ 6 (2014), aff’d, 818 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 

5 C.F.R. § 1201.57.

¶9 In an order on jurisdiction, the administrative judge advised the appellant of 

his burden of proving Board jurisdiction over his VEOA appeal under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3330a. IAF, Tab 3 at 2-3. Finding that the appellant proved Board jurisdiction 

over his appeal as a complaint under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A), the 

administrative judge nonetheless denied the appellant’s request for corrective 

action, concluding that he was not entitled to veterans’ preference because the 

vacancy at issue was filled using merit promotion procedures and the agency had 

properly afforded the appellant with the right to compete. ID at 6-9.

¶10 On review, the appellant reasserts his argument that the agency’s selection 

process was unfair and that his veterans’ preference rights were violated by the 

agency’s decision not to select him for the position. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5,

Tab 4 at 4-5. As the administrative judge correctly observed, the Board has 

regularly held that an individual is not entitled to veterans’ preference points 

under the merit promotion process. ID at 7-8; Boston v. Department of the Army, 

122 M.S.P.R. 577, ¶ 4 (2015); Dean v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

108 M.S.P.R. 137, ¶ 11 (2008); see Joseph v. Federal Trade Commission, 

505 F.3d 1380, 1380-82 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Veterans’ preference under merit 

promotion procedures provides only a right to apply and an opportunity to 

compete in the process of selecting the best qualified candidate. Joseph, 505 F.3d 

at 1383. It does not mandate the method by which the agency makes a selection, 
6

nor does it require any given applicant’s selection. The appellant has not cited 

any statute or regulation regarding veterans’ preference applicable to merit 

promotion procedures that the agency violated by failing to hire him for the 

position. Accordingly, we find that the administrative judge properly found no 

violation of the appellant’s veterans’ preference rights, and we discern no reason 

to disturb her findings. See Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 106 

(1997) (finding no reason to disturb the administrative judge ’s findings when she

considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made 

reasoned conclusions); Broughton v. Department of Health & Human Services, 

33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987) (same).

The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal as a “right-to-compete” claim under 

5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B).

¶11 In addition, the Board may have jurisdiction under VEOA to consider a 

claim that the agency violated a preference eligible’s or a veteran’s right to 

compete. To establish Board jurisdiction over a claim that he was denied the 

opportunity to compete for a vacant position, an appellant must demonstrate that 

he exhausted his administrative remedy with DOL, and make nonfrivolous 

allegations of the following: that he is a preference eligible or veteran who was 

separated from the armed forces under honorable conditions after 3 years or more 

of active service; and that the agency denied him the opportunity to compete 

under merit promotion procedures for a vacant position for which the agency 

accepted applications from individuals outside its own workforce. Oram v. 

Department of the Navy, 2022 MSPB 30, ¶ 6.

¶12 On review, the appellant argues that the agency denied him the right to 

compete for a number of vacancies, including the one at issue in this appeal. 2 

 

2

The appellant also has submitted copies of a number of these vacancy announcements 

as attachments to his petition for review. PFR File, Tab 4 at 6-20. Although he 

suggests that these documents were not available at the time the record closed below, 

PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, all of the included vacancies have closing dates prior to the 

December 9, 2016 close of record date. IAF, Tab 10. Accordingly, we have not 
7

PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. It is undisputed that the appellant is both a preference 

eligible and a veteran who was separated from the armed forces under honorable 

conditions after more than 3 years of active service. IAF, Tab 1 at 1, Tab 4 at 4,

17-19, Tab 9 at 7-8; see 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1). It is similarly undisputed that the 

agency accepted applications for the vacancy announcement from applicants from 

outside its workforce and that the selection at issue took place after December 10, 

2004. IAF, Tab 9 at 8, 11-12.

¶13 Although the administrative judge determined otherwise, ID at 4 n.2, we 

find that the appellant raised a right-to-compete claim below and that he 

presented sufficient evidence that he exhausted his remedy before DOL regarding 

this claim, IAF, Tab 1 at 12-15, Tab 11 at 4-6. The agency does not dispute that 

the appellant raised and exhausted a claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B). IAF, 

Tab 9 at 8-10. Furthermore, in his response to the agency’s motion to dismiss the 

appeal, the appellant indicated his belief that he was not provided a “full 

opportunity to compete” and was not “afforded due consideration in the selection 

process.” IAF, Tab 11 at 4-6. Pro se appellants are not expected to frame issues 

with the precision of a common law pleading. Elliott v. Department of the Air 

Force, 102 M.S.P.R. 364, ¶ 8 (2006). The Board also has held that an appellant’s 

assertion that his veterans’ preference rights were violated should be liberally 

construed and that an allegation, even in general terms, that an appellant’s 

veterans’ preference rights were violated is sufficient to meet the requirement of a 

nonfrivolous allegation to establish Board jurisdiction over a VEOA appeal. 

Slater v. U.S. Postal Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 28, ¶ 6 (2009); Elliot, 102 M.S.P.R. 

364, ¶ 8. Based on the foregoing, we modify the initial decision to find that the 

 

considered this evidence because it is not new in that it was not unavailable when the 

record closed despite the party’s due diligence, and it is not material in that the 

appellant has not explained why he believes that it warrants an outcome different from 

that of the initial decision. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 

(1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).
8

Board has jurisdiction over the appellant’s appeal as a right-to-compete claim 

under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B).

The administrative judge nonetheless correctly found that the agency provided the 

appellant with an opportunity to compete.

¶14 Although we find Board jurisdiction over the appellant’s right-to-compete 

claim, because the record is fully developed on this issue and there is no genuine 

issue of material fact, we also find that we can resolve the claim without 

remanding it to the administrative judge for further consideration. The agency 

submitted undisputed evidence that it considered the appellant’s application, he 

was found qualified for the position, his name was referred for consideration, and 

he was ranked as the third alternate for the position, thus providing him all tha t 

was required under VEOA. ID at 2, 9; see Joseph, 505 F.3d at 1383-84 (finding

that the appellant was given a “full ‘opportunity to compete’” in the merit 

selection process because he filed his application, he was one of the four 

applicants who qualified for final consideration, and he was interviewed, but not 

selected); Harellson v. U.S. Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 534, ¶ 11 (2010) 

(stating that the same evidence establishing that the agency accepted and 

considered the appellant’s application also indicates that he was permitted to 

compete under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1)).

¶15 Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition for review and affirm the 

initial decision as modified, denying the appellant’s request for corrective action.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS3

The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the 

Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. 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 

 

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.
9

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 an d 

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 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. 
10

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. 

(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 that 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 
11

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: 

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. 4The court of appeals must receive your 

 

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 
12

petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). 

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.

 

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. 
13

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