NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3247 

WILLIAM B. DEMONTBREUN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

Respondent. 

William B. DeMontbreun, of Crossville, Tennessee, pro se. 

David A. Harrington, Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. On the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, 

Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Donald E. Kinner, 

Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2008-3247 

WILLIAM B. DEMONTBREUN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT0330070849-I-1. 

 ___________________________ 

 DECIDED: October 14, 2008 

 ___________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

 

PER CURIAM. 

William DeMontbreun appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB), DeMontbreun v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. AT0330070849-I-1 (MSPB Apr. 

3, 2008), denying his request for corrective action. We affirm. 

Mr. DeMontbreun is a preference-eligible veteran with a compensable serviceconnected disability of 10% or more. On July 5, 2007, he filed an appeal alleging that 

the Department of the Navy (Navy) violated his rights under the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act of 1998 when it failed to select him for its Financial Management 

Trainee Program at any of the three geographical locations to which he applied. Navy 

prepared a separate certificate of eligibles for each city corresponding to Mr. 

DeMontbreun’s geographic preferences, and each certificate placed Mr. DeMontbreun 
in preference Category 1 for preference eligibles having a compensable serviceconnected disability of 10% or more. Because there were fewer than three candidates 

in Category 1 for each city, Navy also considered candidates from lower categories 

according to 5 C.F.R. § 302.401. Navy ultimately selected candidates in each city from 

these lower categories. Mr. DeMontbreun alleged that Navy should have used a single 

nation-wide certificate of eligibles, which would have included at least three candidates 

in Category 1 and therefore would have prevented Navy from considering candidates 

from lower categories. Mr. DeMontbreun also alleged that Navy’s bi-weekly selection of 

candidates was too frequent and that it should have waited until three or more 

candidates were in Category 1, which also would have prevented Navy from 

considering lower categories. 

In an initial decision dated October 15, 2007, an administrative judge (AJ) 

determined that Navy “properly afforded [Mr. DeMontbreun] his veterans preference 

under law and regulation by recognizing his veterans preference and putting him in 

category I.” The AJ explained that no law, rule, or regulation required Navy either to 

make its selections from a single nation-wide certificate or to wait until three or more 

candidates were in Category 1. This decision became final on April 3, 2008 when the 

MSPB denied Mr. DeMontbreun’s petition for review. 

Mr. DeMontbreun appeals the MSPB’s final decision, and we have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Our review is limited to setting aside findings or conclusions 

of the MSPB that we find to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, 

2008-3247 2
2008-3247 3

rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). 

Mr. DeMontbreun contends that the AJ: (1) failed to consider 5 C.F.R. § 302.401; 

(2) improperly interpreted section 302.401 as explained above; and (3) “overlooked 

Navy’s attempt to withhold information to justify its non-selection of preference 

eligibles.” We disagree. First, the AJ considered section 302.401 and indeed quoted 

subsection (a) of this regulation. Second, and consistent with the AJ’s initial decision, 

we are aware of no law, rule, or regulation—nor has Mr. DeMontbreun cited any—that 

required Navy to make its selections from a single nation-wide certificate or to wait until 

three or more candidates were in Category 1. The AJ’s conclusion that the Navy 

properly afforded Mr. DeMontbreun his veterans preference rights when it placed him in 

Category 1 was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by 

substantial evidence. Third, Mr. DeMontbreun does not explain what information he 

believes Navy withheld. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the final decision of the MSPB denying Mr. 

DeMontbreun’s request for corrective action. 

COSTS 

No costs.