UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

JOHN TAMBURI,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-1221-15-0326-X-1

DATE: September 16, 2016

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

John Tamburi, Marietta, Georgia, pro se.

William Vines, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 On August 24, 2015, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial 

decision finding the agency in noncompliance with the parties’ May 8, 2015

settlement agreement, and the matter was referred to the Board for consideration. 

Tamburi v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket 

 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

No. AT-1221-15-0326-C-1, Initial Decision (Aug. 24, 2015); Compliance File

(CF), Tab 7, Compliance Initial Decision (CID). For the reasons discussed 

below, we DISMISS the petition for enforcement as settled. 

¶2 In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found that, 

because the agency provided no evidence that it adjusted the appellant’s time in 

grade to F/G-14 from June 22, 2008, through February 7, 2015, paid the appellant 

the appropriate amount of back pay, or used whatever portion of that back pay 

was necessary to repay the appellant’s notice of indebtedness with the 

Department of Interior, it had materially breached the settlement agreement. 

CID at 3. Accordingly, the administrative judge ordered the agency to adjust the 

appellant’s time in grade to F/G-14 from June 22, 2008, through 

February 7, 2015, pay the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay, use 

whatever portion of that back pay was necessary to repay the appellant’s notice of 

indebtedness with the Department of Interior, and fully comply with all other 

relevant aspects of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183. CID at 4. 

¶3 After issuance of the compliance initial decision finding noncompliance, the

parties submitted a document titled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and 

dated by the agency on May 17, 2016, and by the appellant on May 18, 2016. 

Tamburi v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket 

No. AT-1221-15-0326-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 14. The 

document provides for, among other things, the withdrawal of the underlying 

petition for enforcement. Id. 

¶4 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the 

parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend 

to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See 

Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 149 (1988). We find here that 

the parties have satisfied these requirements: they have entered into a settlement 

agreement, they understand the terms, and they want the Board to enforce those 

terms. CRF, Tab 14 at 6. 
3

¶5 In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for 

enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful 

on its face, whether the parties freely entered into it, and whether its subject 

matter is within the Board’s jurisdiction. See Stewart v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 104, 107 (1997). We find here that the agreement is lawful 

on its face, that the parties freely entered into it, and that the subject matter of the 

case—the enforcement of the terms of the May 8, 2015 settlement agreement

under which the appeal in Tamburi v. Department of Transportation, 

MSPB Docket No. AT-1221-15-0326-W-1 was dismissed as settled—is within the 

Board’s jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.41(c)(2)(i). Accordingly, we find that 

dismissal of the petition for enforcement is appropriate, and we accept the 

settlement agreement fully executed by the parties on May 18, 2016 into the 

record for enforcement purposes. 

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

petition for enforcement. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113). 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the 

court at the following address: 

U.S. 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 
4

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). 

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 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 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 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.

______________________________

Jennifer Everling 

Acting Clerk of the Board