UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GLADYS S. BLOUNT,

Appellant,

v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DC-1221-20-0448-W-1

DATE: June 24, 2024



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Gladys S. Blount , Fayetteville, North Carolina, pro se.

John S. Chamblee , Esquire, Peachtree City, Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE Cathy A. Harris , Chairman Raymond A. Limon , Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner , Member*

*Member Kerner recused himself and did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

FINAL ORDER The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal on the grounds of adjudicatory efficiency. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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).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 with respect to the legal bases for dismissal, we AFFIRM the initial decision. On petition for review, the appellant essentially resubmits the jurisdictional statement that she provided in response to the administrative judge’s Order on Jurisdiction and Proof Requirements. Compare Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 1-11, with Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7 at 1-11. She does not discernably challenge the administrative judge’s dismissal of the instant IRA appeal on the grounds of adjudicatory efficiency. PFR File, Tab 1; IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 6; see Bean v. U.S. Postal Service , 120 M.S.P.R. 447, ¶ 5 (2013) (explaining that adjudicatory efficiency is appropriate when an identity of issues exists and the controlling issues in the appeal will be determined in a prior appeal); Zgonc v. Department of Defense , 103 M.S.P.R. 666, ¶ 6 (2006), aff’d , 230 F. App’x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2007). At the time the administrative judge issued her initial decision, both of the appellant’s two prior IRA appeals were pending before the Board on petition for review and, therefore, dismissal on the basis of adjudicatory efficiency was appropriate at the time. See Zgonc , 103 M.S.P.R. 666, ¶ 6. We agree with the administrative judge that the first of these two appeals concerned the appellant’s reassignment. ID at 1-2, 6. However, because the Board has since issued a final 2decision on the merits in that appeal, the appellant’s claim regarding her

reassignment is now appropriately dismissed on the grounds of res judicata. Blount v. Department of Defense , MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-18-0765-W-1, Final Order (May 9, 2024); see Davis v. U.S. Postal Service , 119 M.S.P.R. 22, ¶ 17 (2012), overruled on other grounds by Cronin v. U.S. Postal Service , 2022 MSPB 13. Regarding the appellant’s remaining claims, we agree with the administrative judge that they were the subject of her other previous IRA appeal, which the administrative judge had already dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Blount v. Department of Defense , MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-19-0766-W-1, Initial Decision; ID at 2-3, 6. After the initial decision in the instant appeal was issued, the appellant withdrew the petition for review that she had filed in that IRA appeal and elected to seek review before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. Blount v. Department of Defense , MSPB Docket No. DC-1221- 19-0766-W-1, Petition for Review File, Tab 7 at 1. On August 3, 2021, the court issued a final decision affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Blount v. Merit Systems Protection Board , 855 F. App’x 764 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Therefore, the appropriate basis for the dismissal of those claims is now collateral estoppel. See Killeen v. Office of Personnel Management , 558 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2009); McNeil v. Department of Defense , 100 M.S.P.R. 146, ¶ 15 (2005).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2 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 forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following

2 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. 3summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not

provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and 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. 4If 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. 420 (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 5EEOC’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 6competent jurisdiction. 3 The court of appeals must receive your 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.

3 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 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. 7Contact 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:

______________________________ Gina K. Grippando Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C. 8