UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CECILIA ROTELLI,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-315H-17-0113-X-1

DATE: June 14, 2023

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Cecilia Rotelli, Auburn, Washington, pro se.

Basil R. Legg, Jr., Esquire, North Charleston, South Carolina, for the 

agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 This case is before the Board pursuant to a compliance initial decision of 

the administrative judge finding the agency in partial noncompliance with a 

settlement agreement. Rotelli v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. SF-

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

315H-17-0113-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 15, Compliance Initial Decision (CID). 

For the reasons discussed below, we now find the agency in compliance and 

DISMISS the petition for enforcement. 

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE

¶2 The appellant was terminated from her position in November 2016. Rotelli 

v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. SF-315H-17-0113-I-1, Final Order 

(July 15, 2022); Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 8. The appellant filed an 

appeal of her termination. Rotelli v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket 

No. SF-315H-17-0113-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. While the appeal 

was pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. IAF, Tab 25. The 

settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:

(1) The Agency will rescind its Notice of Termination during 

Probationary Period dated November 3, 2016 and will initiate 

actions to cancel and remove from Appellant’s Official Personnel 

File the SF-52 and SF-50 removing Appellant from Federal 

Service as of November 3, 2016. The Agency will replace the 

existing SF-50 with an SF-50 showing Appellant voluntarily 

resigned from Federal service effective April 18, 2017.

Id. at 1. The administrative judge issued an initial decision dated February 17, 

2017, entering the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement purposes 

and dismissing the appeal. IAF, Tab 30, Initial Decision at 3. 

¶3 On October 31, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for review of the initial 

decision, requesting that the Board “review the settlement agreement and the case 

itself, and the decision to approve.” PFR File, Tab 2 at 4. The appellant also 

claimed that the agency failed to comply with the settlement agreement by 

updating her personnel file to reflect her voluntary resignation. Id. On July 15, 

2022, the Board dismissed the petition for review as untimely filed, but forwarded 

the appellant’s allegations of noncompliance to the regional office for docketing 

as a petition for enforcement. Final Order at 5-6; PFR File, Tab 8. 
3

¶4 In a January 17, 2023 compliance initial decision, after providing the 

parties with the opportunity to file evidence and argument regarding the 

compliance issue, the administrative judge found that the agency had not 

complied, in part, with the settlement agreement, because it failed to expunge all 

references to the appellant’s November 3, 2016 termination from her Official 

Personnel File (OPF). CID at 7. Although the agency had removed from the 

appellant’s OPF the Standard Form (SF) 50 and SF-52 which referred to the 

November termination, the administrative judge found that the OPF still 

contained four documents which clearly referred to appellant’s November 3, 2016 

termination “in the context of FEHB [Federal Employee Health Benefits] and 

Federal Employees’ Gorup [sic] Life Insurance (FEGLI) coverage, and a narrative 

form issued in lieu of an SF-1150, Record of Leave Data, for employee data 

transfer.” Id. The administrative judge ordered the agency to “expunge 

references to the appellant’s November 3, 2016 termination from he r OPF, i.e., 

delete entirely the four pages described above, or redact the extant references on 

those pages, and to ensure no additional references exist in her OPF.” CID at 10.2

ANALYSIS

¶5 A settlement agreement is a contract and, as such, will be enforced in 

accordance with contract law. Burke v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

121 M.S.P.R. 299, ¶ 8 (2014). The Board will enforce a settlement agreement 

that has been entered into the record in the same manner as a final Board decision 

 

2

The compliance initial decision informed the agency that, if it decided to take the 

actions required by the decision, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board, within the 

time limit for filing a petition for review under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), a statement that 

it has taken the actions identified in the compliance initial decision, along with 

evidence establishing that it has taken those actions. CID at 10-11; see 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.183(a)(6)(i). The compliance initial decision also informed the parties that they 

could file a petition for review if they disagreed with the compliance initial decision. 

CID at 11; see 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.114 (e), 1201.183(a)(6)(ii). Neither party petitioned 

for review of the compliance initial decision.
4

or order. Id. In a proceeding to enforce a settlement agreement, the party 

alleging noncompliance with the agreement has the burden of proof. Modrowski 

v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 97 M.S.P.R. 224, ¶ 7 (2004). However, when 

an appellant makes specific allegations of noncompliance, as appellant did here, it 

is the agency’s burden to produce relevant evidence within its control showing 

compliance with its agreement or showing good cause for its failure to comply. 

Id.

¶6 On February 15, 2023, the agency filed a statement of compliance 

representing that it had sent the required paperwork to the Navy Office of Human 

Resources (OHR) for removal or redaction of the identified documents and 

verification that no other documents in appellant’s OPF referred to the 

November 3, 2016 termination; and stating that agency counsel awaited 

verification from OHR that these actions had been taken. Rotelli v. Department

of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. SF-315H-17-0113-X-1, Compliance Referral File 

(CRF), Tab 1 at 3.

¶7 After requesting and receiving an extension of time, the agency filed a 

supplement to the statement of compliance on March 6, 2023. CRF, Tab 5. 

Attached to the supplement is a declaration by an agency paralegal attesting to the 

actions the agency took to comply with the January 17, 2023 compliance initial 

decision, including expunging the references to the November 3, 2016 

termination cited by the administrative judge, and searching for, and removing, 

other references to the termination in the OPF. Id. at 6-7. The agency also 

attached supporting documents, which include a copy of the final revised and 

redacted version of appellant’s OPF. Id. at 6-224 On March 14, 2023, the 

appellant filed a “Response to the Acknowledgement Order dated February 16, 

2023,” asking that the Board consider the “ramifications and repercussions”

resulting from the agency’s non-compliance and requesting that the agency send 
5

her “copies of education and certificates obtained” during her employment. 3 

CRF, Tab 6 at 11. 

¶8 In its submissions, the agency produced evidence demonstrating that it has 

removed all references to the November 3, 2016 termination from appellant’s

OPF and thus complied with the settlement agreement. The appellant has not 

rebutted this evidence. Accordingly, we find the agency in compliance with the 

settlement agreement and the final order in the underlying case, and DISMISS the 

petition for enforcement.4

¶9 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this 

compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 

1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney 

fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of 

the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The 

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If 

you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees 

WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You 

must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision 

on your appeal. 

 

3 To the extent the appellant seeks to require the agency to send her copies of her 

“education and certificates obtained,” CRF, Tab 6 at 10, she has no authority to impose 

additional obligations on the agency outside of those established in the existing 

settlement agreement. 

4

The agency’s June 13, 2023 request for a status conference is denied based on our 

finding of compliance.
6

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS5

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 summary 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: 

 

5

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.
7

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. 

(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 
8

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 

EEOC’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 
9

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 

competent jurisdiction.6 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 

 

6

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.
10

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that 

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

Contact 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:

Washington, D.C.

 /s/ for 

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board