UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

TAMI L. WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-0752-12-0072-I-1

DATE: August 14, 2014

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Tami L. Williams, Anchorage, Alaska, pro se.

Robert B. Stirk, Esquire, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which 

dismissed her appeal as untimely filed. For the reasons set forth below, the 

 

* A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good 

cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g). 

¶2 The administrative judge’s February 1, 2012 initial decision, dismissing the 

appellant’s removal appeal as untimely filed, stated that it would become final on 

March 7, 2012, unless a petition for review was filed with the Board by that date. 

Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 17, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 5. The initial 

decision further informed the appellant of how and where to file the petition for 

review. ID at 5-6.

¶3 On May 31, 2014, the appellant electronically filed a document with the 

Board’s Western Regional Office captioned as a request to reopen an appeal 

dismissed without prejudice. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. Because 

there was an initial decision issued in the appellant’s removal appeal, the Western 

Regional Office forwarded the pleading to the Clerk of the Board as a petition for 

review. PFR File, Tab 2 at 1. The Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that 

the February 1, 2012 initial decision did not dismiss the appeal without prejudice 

but dismissed the appeal as untimely filed. Id. The Clerk of the Board further 

advised the appellant that her petition for review appeared untimely filed and 

provided her an opportunity to submit the required motion to (1) accept the filing 

as timely, and/or (2) waive the time limit for good cause, id. at 1-2, but the 

appellant has not responded. 

¶4 The Board has denied a waiver of its filing deadline if a good reason for the 

delay is not shown, even when the delay is brief and the appellant is pro se. See 

Jacks v. Department of the Air Force, 114 M.S.P.R. 355, ¶ 10 (2010). In this 

case, the appellant’s delay of approximately 26 months was not brief but was 

significant. See Mauldin v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 513, ¶ 13 (2011) 

(finding a 7-month delay in filing an appeal was significant). Moreover, the 

appellant has not responded to the Clerk’s notice regarding timeliness and did not 

allege facts in her petition for review to otherwise support a finding of good 
3

cause for its untimeliness. PFR File, Tab 1. She alleges, rather, that: (1) she has 

been looking for another position with the Department of Defense but has not 

been selected; (2) some unnamed individuals within the agency have been 

“smearing [her] name”; (3) the agency is advertising her former position at a 

different location; and (4) her removal was improper. Id. at 3. These arguments 

are inapposite to the issue of timeliness. See Smith v. Department of the Army, 

105 M.S.P.R. 433, ¶ 7 (2007). Accordingly, the Board finds no good cause for 

the filing delay and DISMISSES the petition for review as untimely filed.

¶5 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 dismissal of the underlying appeal as 

untimely filed. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

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 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).
4

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 your court 

appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of 

attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for 

Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. 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.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board