UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 

JAPHET RIVERA,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

CH-0707-15-0469-J-1

DATE: June 9, 2015

Jonathan Bell, Garden City, New York, for the appellant.

Susan Tylar, Garden City, New York, for the appellant.

Christina Knott, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

Demetrious A. Harris, Esquire, Dayton, Ohio, for the agency.

Shelley D. Cutts, Phoenix, Arizona, for the agency.

BEFORE

Michele Szary Schroeder

Chief Administrative Judge

DECISION

A hearing was scheduled in this matter at the U.S. District Court in Urbana, 

Illinois on June 8, 2015. A decision was announced at the start of the hearing and 

it is fully documented in the attached partial hearing transcript. The partial 

transcript contains the complete decision and related reasoning and legal 

references. The date on which the bench decision was announced at the hearing 

was its effective date. 
2

DECISION

The Appeal is dismissed as settled. 

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Michele Szary Schroeder

Chief Administrative Judge

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. 
3

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE

 

____________________________

 

JAPHET RIVERA, ) 

 )

 Appellant, ) 

 ) Docket Number

v. ) CH-0707-15-0469-J-1

 )

DEPARTMENT OF )

VETERANS AFFAIRS, )

 )

 Agency. )

____________________________ 

 Courtroom A 

 U.S. District Court 

 201 S. Vine Street

Urbana, Illinois 

 Monday, 

June 8, 2015 

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 

pursuant to notice, at 8:30 o'clock a.m.

BEFORE: MICHELE SZARY SCHROEDER 

 Chief Administrative Judge
4

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Agency:

CHRISTINA KNOTT, ESQ. (via telephone)

Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20420 

(202) 697-2232

I N D E X

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
5

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:37 a.m.)

CHIEF ADMIN. JUDGE SZARY SCHROEDER: Good morning, my 

name is Michele Schroeder. I am the Administrative Judge 

assigned to the matter of Japhet Rivera v. Department of 

Veterans Affairs. This matter was scheduled for hearing today. 

It is June 8, 2015. We are in Urbana, Illinois at the U.S. 

District Courthouse. 

 Last night the parties reached a settlement in 

principle and early this morning I received a fully executed 

settlement agreement. So at this point I will announce a bench 

decision.

On May 28, 2015, Japhet Rivera filed an appeal 

challenging the Department of Veterans Affairs' action to remove 

him from employment as the Director of the Danville V.A. Center. 

This 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. 

The parties have presented to me a written 

settlement agreement that has been fully executed by all 

parties; it can be found at tab 54 of the record. It has been 

signed by the Appellant, Japhet Rivera; by Appellant's counsel, 

Jonathan Bell; by Agency counsel, Christina Knott; and by the 
6

Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Sloan 

Gibson. 

Before I discuss the settlement agreement I just 

would like to commend counsel on both sides for their diligence 

and civility. The time constraints under which this appeal had 

to be processed were difficult, at best, for everyone involved. 

That being said, the terms of the settlement agreement fully 

resolve the issues raised by this appeal. Public policy favors 

settlement agreements, which serve to avoid unnecessary 

litigation and to encourage fair and speedy resolution of 

issues. See Yeto v. U.S. Postal Service, 41 M.S.P.R. 402, 404 

(1989). 

I find the settlement agreement is lawful on its 

face and the parties freely entered into the agreement and 

understand its terms. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal as 

settled; also, a notice to the Appellant that pursuant to 38 

U.S.C. Section 713(e)(2), this decision is final and not subject 

to any further appeal. Anything from the Agency?

MS. KNOTT: No, Your Honor.

CHIEF ADMIN. JUDGE SZARY SCHROEDER: All right, this 

matter is concluded and this appeal has been dismissed. Thank 

you, Ms. Knott for your time.

MS. KNOTT: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Whereupon, at 8:40 a.m., the above-entitled 

matter was concluded.)