NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JULIA A. HOLLAND,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3034

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-3443-14-0014-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: July 14, 2015

______________________ 

JULIA A. HOLLAND, Vienna, VA, pro se. 

JEFFREY GAUGER, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, 

DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G.

POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit 

Judges.
2 HOLLAND v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Julia Holland appeals from a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) final order affirming the 

administrative judge’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 

We conclude that the Board correctly determined that it 

lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Holland’s appeal. Thus, we 

affirm.

For twenty-four years, Ms. Holland was employed in a 

GS-7 position at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts in Vienna, Virginia. However, on August 27, 

2013, Ms. Holland received a reassignment order transferring her to a GS-7 position at Piscataway Park in Fort 

Washington, Maryland. Ms. Holland has since been 

reassigned to National Capital Parks-East (“NACE”)

headquarters in Anacostia, and Ms. Holland never had to 

report to Piscataway Park. Ms. Holland expresses frustration with the reassignment process, which she alleges 

was confusing. Ms. Holland also alleges that she was 

held for four months in an undocumented, day-to-day GS7 role at NACE headquarters before being officially reassigned there instead of Piscataway Park. Despite being 

compensated at a GS-7 rate, Ms. Holland asserts that her 

duties at NACE headquarters did not reflect her GS-7 

level. The government responds that the Board lacks 

jurisdiction over Ms. Holland’s appeal because Ms. Holland did not suffer an adverse action.

By regulation, the petitioner bears the burden of proving that the Board has jurisdiction. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A); see Lazaro v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The jurisdiction of the Board is not plenary, but is “limited to those 

areas specifically granted by statute or regulation.”

Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 1327 

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Antolin v. Dep’t of Justice, 895 

F.2d 1395, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Section 7512 of 5 
HOLLAND v. MSPB 3

U.S.C. lists the adverse actions that are appealable to the 

Board:

(1) a removal;

(2) a suspension for more than 14 days;

(3) a reduction in grade;

(4) a reduction in pay; and

(5) a furlough of 30 days or less. 

Ms. Holland has not alleged that she was removed, suspended for more than fourteen days, or furloughed for 

thirty days or less. While Ms. Holland contends that her 

new job responsibilities were not GS-7 grade level duties, 

her reassignment maintained her previous GS-7 grade 

and pay. As such, Ms. Holland has not suffered a reduction in grade or pay. Therefore, Ms. Holland was not 

subject to an adverse action, and the Board properly 

dismissed Ms. Holland’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Ms. Holland argues that “violations of the statutory 5 

U.S.C. 2301 ‘Merit Systems Principles’ and its OPM 

implementing regulations should be held to be equally 

sufficient for the MSPB to assert an independent jurisdictional basis (if one is required).to [sic] consider the merits 

of cases such as Petitioner’s allegation of directedreassignment abuse.” Pet’r’s Br. 5. But the Board’s 

jurisdiction is based entirely on statutes passed by Congress—the judiciary cannot independently broaden the 

Board’s jurisdiction without congressional authorization. 

This court is bound by 5 U.S.C. § 7512, and we must apply 

the law as given.

Ms. Holland also contends that “OPM’s regulatory 

guidance places the burden of proving that Petitioner did 

not lose grade on the reassigning agency . . . .” Id. The 

only authority Ms. Holland cites is 5 C.F.R. § 335.102, but 

5 C.F.R. § 335.102 provides an agency with the authority 

to reassign employees—it does not address which party 

has the burden of proving Board jurisdiction. Rather, as 

discussed above, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A) and our 
4 HOLLAND v. MSPB

case law place the burden of proving Board jurisdiction on 

the petitioner. Nevertheless, even if the burden were on 

the government to prove that the Board lacks jurisdiction, 

the government notes that Ms. Holland’s reassignment 

notice states that “[t]his action will not result in a loss to 

your pay or grade . . . .” Resp’t’s App. 19. Therefore, the 

government has demonstrated that the reassignment has 

not caused “a reduction in grade” or “a reduction in pay” 

under § 7512.

We find the remainder of Ms. Holland’s arguments 

unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.