UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

LORETTA JEAN ALFORD,

Appellant,

v. 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE 

FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND 

OR SEVERELY DISABLED,

Agency. 

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-0752-14-0892-I-1

DATE: August 19, 2016

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Bradley R. Marshall, Charleston, South Carolina, for the appellant. 

Floyd Allen Phaup, II, Esquire, 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 

affirmed her removal for absence without leave, failure to follow supervisory 

instructions, and unauthorized use of Government property. For the reasons set 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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). 
2

forth below, the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed 

without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g). 

BACKGROUND

¶2 On July 16, 2014, the appellant filed an appeal challenging her removal and 

raising affirmative defenses of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures and equal 

employment opportunity activity, disability discrimination, and harmful 

procedural error. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. On November 13, 2014, the 

administrative judge issued a decision affirming the agency’s action and denying 

the appellant’s affirmative defenses. IAF, Tab 23, Initial Decision. On 

December 1, 2014, the appellant moved for an extension of time to file a petition 

for review of the initial decision, and the extension request was granted. Petition 

for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-6, Tab 2 at 1. When granting the request, the 

Board directed the appellant to file a petition for review on or before January 20, 

2015. PFR File, Tab 2 at 1. Over a year later, on March 16, 2016, the appellant 

filed an untimely petition with the Board’s Washington Regional Office, which 

then forwarded the pleading to the full Board in Washington, D.C., and the Clerk 

of the Board instructed her to file a motion to accept the filing as timely or to 

waive the time limit for good cause. PFR File, Tab 4, Tab 6 at 2. The appellant 

filed a motion on April 8, 2016, in which she addressed the merits of her removal, 

but not the timeliness issue. 2

 PFR File, Tab 7 at 1. 

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

¶3 The Board’s regulations provide that any petition for review must be filed 

within 35 days after the date of issuance of the initial decision or, if the petitioner 

 2 On July 8, 2016, several months after filing her petition for review, the appellant filed an 

additional pleading. PFR File, Tab 8. Although the appellant failed to first request leave 

from the Clerk of the Board as required by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5) prior to filing her 

additional pleading, we nonetheless have reviewed the pleading and find it not material to 

the outcome of the appeal.
3

shows that the initial decision was received more than 5 days after the date of 

issuance, within 30 days after the date the petitioner received the initial 

decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board may waive the time limit upon a 

showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.113(d), 

1201.114(f). To establish good cause for the untimely filing of a petition for 

review, a party must show that she exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence 

under the particular circumstances of the case. Marcantel v. Department of 

Energy, 121 M.S.P.R. 330, ¶ 10 (2014); Alonzo v. Department of the 

Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). To determine whether an appellant has 

shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of the delay, the 

reasonableness of her excuse and her showing of due diligence, whether she is 

proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented evidence of the existence of 

circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to comply with the time 

limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarly shows a causal 

relationship to her inability to timely file her appeal. Marcantel, 121 M.S.P.R. 

330, ¶ 10. 

¶4 The appellant filed a petition for review approximately 1 year and 2 months 

later than the deadline mandated by the Board. She did not dispute that her 

petition was untimely. Upon receiving the untimely petition, the Board advised 

the appellant that she would have to show good cause for waiving the filing 

deadline. PFR File, Tab 6 at 1-2. In her motion to waive the deadline, the 

appellant did not provide any explanation for her untimely petition. PFR File, 

Tab 7 at 1, 3. She did not allege any illness or other incapacity that somehow 

prevented her from filing on time. Lacy v. Department of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 

434, 437 (1998). The appellant had representation to assist her in the appeals 

process and has not demonstrated any circumstances beyond her control that 

prevented her from filing a petition for review within the time allotted by the 

Board. PFR File, Tab 3 at 2. Since the appellant has not demonstrated good 
4

cause, her petition must be dismissed as untimely. Deville v. Government 

Printing Office, 93 M.S.P.R. 187, ¶¶ 13-14 (2002).

¶5 Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is 

the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness 

of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the 

Board regarding the removal appeal. 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS3

You have the right to request further review of this final decision. There 

are several options for further review set forth in the paragraphs below. You may 

choose only one of these options, and once you elect to pursue one of the avenues 

of review set forth below, you may be precluded from pursuing any other avenue 

of review.

Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review

You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination 

claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See title 5 

of the U.S. Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you submit your 

request 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 your request via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a 

signature, it must be addressed to:

 3 The administrative judge did not afford the appellant notice of her appeal rights under 

the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 or notice of her mixed-case 

right to appeal her discrimination claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission and/or the appropriate U.S. district court. This was error, but it does not 

constitute reversible error because we notify the appellant of her proper rights in this 

Final Order. See Grimes v. U.S. Postal Service, 39 M.S.P.R. 183, 186–87 (1988).
5
6

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, NE

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after 

your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your 

representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no 

later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to 

file, be very careful to file on time.

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action

If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your 

discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your 

discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate U.S. district court. 

See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with the district court 

no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a 

representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you 

do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after 

receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on 

time. 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. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) 

and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.

Other Claims: Judicial Review

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

claims of prohibited personnel practices described in 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 
7

may request the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of 

appeals of competent jurisdiction to review this final decision. 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.

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 U.S. 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 U.S. Code, at our 

website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm. 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, and 11. Additional information about 

other 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. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your 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 Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services 

provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation 

in a given case.
8

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board