UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

JOHN PAUL JONES, III , Appellant,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DE

- 3330

- 15

- 0489

- I

- 1 DE

- 3330

- 15

- 0481

- I

- 1

DATE: April 4, 2016



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

John Paul Jones, III , Albuquerque, New Mexico, pro se. Corey Thompson , Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which denied the appellant’s request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 because the agency closed out the vacancy announcements at issue witho ut making any selections for those

* A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orde rs, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future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 Boar d as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c).2

positions. 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 regulati on 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. See t itle 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1 201.115 ( 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 and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 (b).

NOTICE TO THE APPELL ANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS You have the right to request review of this final decision by the
U .S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the court at the following address: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439 The court must receive your request for re view 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).3

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 i n
t itle 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 cour t’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 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 Merit Systems 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