UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 

MARIO DESANCTIS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

CH-0707-15-0662-J-1

DATE: September 11, 2015

Timothy Lecher, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the appellant.

Cedrick L. Wilson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

Leigh E. Schwarz, Esquire, Portland, Oregon, for the agency.

Richard Johns, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

Soquel Harding, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Michele Szary Schroeder

Chief Administrative Judge

DECISION

On September 5, 2015, Mario DeSanctis filed an appeal challenging the

decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to remove him from 

employment as the Director of the Medical Center in Tomah, Wisconsin. The 

VA’s removal action was taken pursuant to the Veterans Access, Choice, and 

Accountability Act of 2014, See 38 U.S.C. § 713. The Merit Systems Protection 

Board has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to that statute.
2

On September 10, 2015, the parties submitted a fully executed settlement 

agreement. 1 See Appeal Record, Tab 41. Public policy favors settlement 

agreements, which avoid unnecessary litigation and promote fair and speedy 

resolution of disputed issues. See Richardson v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 5 M.S.P.R. 248, 250 (1981), modified by, Shaw v. Department of the 

Navy, 39 M.S.P.R. 586 (1989), overruled on other grounds by, Joyce v. Air 

Force, 74 M.S.P.R. 112 (1997). If a settlement agreement is submitted for the 

record, the Board retains jurisdiction for enforcement purposes. Id. The Board’s 

administrative judges must ensure, however, that settlements are lawful and 

freely made before they are entered into the appellate record. Id.

I have reviewed the settlement agreement and find it fully resolves the 

issues raised by this appeal. I find this settlement agreement is lawful on its face 

and that the parties freely entered into the agreement, understand its terms, and 

intend to have the agreement entered into the record. I therefore accept the 

settlement agreement into the record for purposes of enforcement. See Brown v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 400, ¶¶ 4-5 (2010); Ector v.

Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 439, ¶ 4 (2009). This appeal is 

dismissed as settled. 

____/S/__________________________

Michele Szary Schroeder

Chief Administrative Judge

 

1 Paragraph five of the settlement agreement contains an Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act waiver although the statutory requirements of such a waiver were not 

specified. See 29 U.S.C. § 626. Because the appellant did not allege age 

discrimination, the waiver is not necessary. 
3

NOTICE TO APPELLANT

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 713(e)(2), this decision is final and not subject to 

any further appeal.

ENFORCEMENT

The settlement agreement has been made part of the record. If you believe 

there has not been full compliance with the terms of the agreement, you may ask 

the Board to enforce the agreement by filing a petition for enforcement with this 

office.

Your petition for enforcement must describe specifically the reasons why 

you believe there is noncompliance. It must include the date and results of any 

communications regarding compliance, and a statement showing that a copy of 

the petition was either mailed or hand-delivered to the agency. 

Any petition for enforcement must be filed within a reasonable period of 

time after you discover the asserted noncompliance. If you believe that your 

petition is filed late, you should include a statement and evidence showing good 

cause for the delay and a request for an extension of time for filing.