NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHN PAUL JONES, III,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3038

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. DE-3330-12-0137-I-2, DE-3330-12-0338-I-2.

______________________ 

Decided: July 10, 2015

______________________ 

 JOHN PAUL JONES, III, Albuquerque, NM, pro se.

 MEEN GEU OH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., KIRK T. MANHARDT. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and MOORE,

Circuit Judges.
2 JONES v. HHS

PER CURIAM. 

John Paul Jones III appeals the final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), which denied 

Mr. Jones’s petition for review and affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision denying Mr. Jones’s request 

for corrective action under the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”). For the reasons 

discussed below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Jones is a preference eligible veteran. He served 

in the military as a medical corpsman during the Vietnam 

War, and also has many years of private sector experience 

in health-related fields. 

In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued two concurrent competitive and 

merit promotion vacancy announcements, both for overseas positions with the Center for Disease Control and 

Prevention (“CDC”). The first vacancy was for a Management and Operations Public Health Advisor (“PHA”) 

position, for which six job requests were issued. Hired 

candidates were expected to “[m]anage, coordinate, and 

evaluate all aspects of complex public health programs . . . 

[and m]anage grant/cooperative agreements and comparable funding sources for contracts.” Resp’t’s App. 33. 

The second vacancy was for a Technical PHA position, for 

which nine job requests were issued. Hired candidates 

were expected to be familiar with “grant/cooperative 

agreements or other contracts” and to “[d]evelop, implement, and manage public health programs many of which 

may be significant in complexity.” Id. at 27–28. Both 

vacancies required that “qualify[ing] applicants must 

possess at least one year of specialized experience (at the 

next lowest grade) that has equipped the applicant with 

the particular knowledge, skills, and abilities to successfully perform the duties of” the position. Id. at 28, 34. 

The Management and Operations PHA vacancy further 
JONES v. HHS 3

specified that “specialized experience” was “experience 

such as serving as a public health advisor or a principle 

representative, providing financial accountability, performing internal controls, and/or planning strategic 

initiatives and policies.” Id. at 34.

Mr. Jones applied for all fifteen open jobs, submitting

his resume and other application materials, and completing the self-assessments with the highest attainable 

scores in every relevant category. Although Mr. Jones

indicated an interest in HIV/AIDS-related work for the

Management and Operations PHA vacancy, he did not do 

so for the Technical PHA vacancy. Therefore, he was not 

considered for two of the Technical PHA positions for 

which only applicants who had listed HIV/AIDS as a job 

preference were considered. However, Mr. Jones did 

remain in consideration for the other thirteen PHA positions. But upon review by three Human Resources (“HR”) 

Specialists, Mr. Jones was rated as not qualified for any of 

the positions based on lack of the required one year of 

specialized experience.

After exhausting his administrative remedies with 

the Department of Labor, Mr. Jones filed two VEOA 

appeals with the Board challenging his non-selection for 

the PHA positions. He argued, among other things, that 

his prior work experience had not been properly valued 

and that the agency had improperly failed to afford him 

priority consideration in the selection process. 

The administrative judge consolidated the appeals, 

and, after full briefing and a hearing, issued an initial 

decision affirming the HHS’s determination that Mr. 

Jones was not qualified for the positions. In his decision, 

the administrative judge explained that Mr. Jones’s 

military experience as a medical corpsman treating 

soldiers in combat in Vietnam did not involve public 

health programs or grants/cooperative agreements, as 

required for the vacant positions. And with respect to Mr. 
4 JONES v. HHS

Jones’s private sector experience, the administrative 

judge agreed with the testimony of the three HR Specialists that Mr. Jones did not show the type of experience 

required by the positions. In particular, the administrative judge explained that, although Mr. Jones’s resume 

showed extensive administrative experience, it did not 

show the requisite work with public health programs, as a 

public health advisor, or experience planning strategic 

initiatives and/or analyzing public health programs. The 

administrative judge also found that, because the agency 

acted within its discretion in finding Mr. Jones not qualified, any failure to afford him priority consideration was 

harmless error. 

Mr. Jones petitioned for review of the initial decision. 

After additional briefing, the Board agreed with the 

administrative judge, denied the petition for review, and 

affirmed the initial decision. Mr. Jones then appealed to 

this court.

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited by statute. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been 

followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 

U.S.C. § 7703(c).

Mr. Jones’s primary contention is that the agency 

failed to properly value his experience when finding him 

unqualified for the PHA positions. When experience is a 

factor in determining eligibility, the agency is required to 

credit a preference eligible veteran with his or her military service that was in a position similar to the one being 

sought, as well as with all other “valuable experience.” 

See 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d). 
JONES v. HHS 5

We conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by 

substantial evidence. As an initial matter, it was reasonable for the agency to exclude Mr. Jones from consideration for the Technical PHA positions that required an 

expressed interest in HIV/AIDS work based on his failure 

to indicate such preference. And with respect to the 

remaining positions, the Board properly upheld the administrative judge’s findings on the agency’s evaluation of 

Mr. Jones’s prior experience. As the Board explained, the 

administrative judge considered Mr. Jones’s application 

materials as well as the testimony of three HR Specialists. After evaluating that evidence, the administrative 

judge concluded that Mr. Jones’s experience, while extensive, did not involve the requisite work in public health 

programs, as a public health advisor, or experience planning strategic initiatives and/or analyzing public health 

programs. Because the Board’s findings are supported by 

substantial evidence, and because we are not free at this 

stage to reweigh the credibility determinations made 

below, we must uphold the Board’s determination regarding the agency’s evaluation of Mr. Jones’s qualifying 

experience. See Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 618 F.3d 1306, 

1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A]n evaluation of witness credibility is within the discretion of the Board and . . . such 

evaluations are virtually unreviewable upon appeal.”) 

(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We also agree with the remainder of the Board’s conclusions challenged by Mr. Jones. With respect to priority 

consideration, we agree that any failure of the agency to 

afford Mr. Jones priority consideration is harmless, as the 

agency ultimately concluded that Mr. Jones was not 

qualified for the relevant PHA positions. With regards to 

Mr. Jones’s complaint of age discrimination, the record 

demonstrates that he was passed over for the PHA positions because he was deemed unqualified, not because of 

his age. Finally, while Mr. Jones argues about the low 

percentage of veterans in the HHS and the fact that he 
6 JONES v. HHS

has applied for hundreds of positions without once being 

hired, our review in this case is restricted to whether the 

Board correctly upheld the administrative judge’s decision 

in this case. 

We have carefully considered the remainder of Mr. 

Jones’s arguments and have determined that they lack 

merit. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s 

decision and deny Mr. Jones’s request for remedies. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.