UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

LAWRENCE V. WILDER, SR.,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBERS

PH-844E-08-0524-I-6

PH-1221-08-0452-W-6

DATE: September 21, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL∗

Lawrence V. Wilder, Sr., Wilmington, North Carolina, pro se. 

James Williams, Washington, D.C., 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 

dismissed his joined appeals without prejudice to refiling. 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 

 ∗ A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

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. See

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 and 

AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113(b). 

¶2 Pursuant to the appellant’s request, the administrative judge dismissed his 

joined appeals without prejudice to subsequent refiling, for the second time, in 

order to afford the appellant with a final opportunity to obtain representation in 

this matter. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6, Initial Decision (ID) at 1. The 

administrative judge also ordered the joined appeals automatically refiled 

180 days from the date of his May 26, 2015 initial decision or on November 23, 

2015. ID at 4 The administrative judge noted that, on February 15, 2014, the 

appellant requested assistance with obtaining representation by counsel in his 

disability retirement appeal, citing the procedures set forth in French v. Office of 

Personnel Management, 37 M.S.P.R. 496, 499 (1988). ID at 1. The 

administrative judge also noted that he granted the appellant’s request, contacted

all known practicing attorneys in the Board’s database within 75 miles of the 

appellant’s residence, and provided him with a list of pro bono options. ID 

at 1-4. 

¶3 The appellant filed a petition for review of the initial decision arguing, 

among other things, that the administrative judge lied and failed to help him 

retain counsel. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2. The appellant also 
3

discusses his extensive history before the Board and other agencies. In addition, 

he raises many other allegations, all of which we have reviewed, but we find that 

they do not address the dismissal without prejudice in the underlying action. Id. 

at 2-5. 

¶4 A dismissal without prejudice is a procedural option left to the sound 

discretion of the administrative judge. See Keene v. Department of the Interior, 

47 M.S.P.R. 41, 44 (1991). On review, the appellant does not specifically assert 

that the administrative judge erred in dismissing his appeal without prejudice to 

refiling. Moreover, the appellant requested the dismissal without prejudice, and, 

apparently, he still is having difficulty finding pro bono representation before the 

automatic refiling of his joined appeals on November 23, 2015. IAF, Tab 5; PFR 

File, Tab 1 at 2. We therefore find that the administrative judge did not abuse his 

discretion by dismissing these appeals without prejudice to refiling, to afford the 

appellant another opportunity to obtain representation in these joined matters. 

See Goode v. Department of the Air Force, 91 M.S.P.R. 198, ¶ 5 (2002). 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS IN 

MSPB DOCKET NO. PH-844E-08-0524-I-6

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the 

United States 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 review 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 
4

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). 

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 in 

Title 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 court’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 

United States 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. 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS IN

MSPB DOCKET NO. PH-1221-08-0452-W-6

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

The court must receive your request for review 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). 
5

If you want to request review of the Board’s decision concerning your 

claims of prohibited personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), 

(b)(9)(A)(i), (b)(9)(B), (b)(9)(C), or (b)(9)(D), but you do not want to challenge 

the Board’s disposition of any other claims of prohibited personnel practices, you 

may request review of this final decision by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The 

court of appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days after the 

date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If 

you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. You may choose to request 

review of the Board’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit or any other court of appeals of competent jurisdiction, but not 

both. Once you choose to seek review in one court of appeals, you may be 

precluded from seeking review in any other court.

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 in 

Title 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 about the United States 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, and 11. 

Additional information about other courts of appeals can be found at their 

respective websites, which can be accessed through 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your appeal to 

the 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 
6

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