UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

WILLIAM BURCHETT, Appellant,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NA VY, Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DC

- 0752

- 15

- 0148

- I

- 1

DATE: September 25, 2015



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

Debra D’ Agostino , Esq uire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

Denise Gillis , Quantico, Virginia, for the agency.

BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the April 10, 2015 initial
decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 18; Petition for Review (PFR) File , Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the initial
deci sion and DISMISS the appeal as settled.

* A nonprecedential order is one tha t the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Boar d and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future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

¶2 After the initial decision in this appeal became final , the parties submitted a
document titled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed by the appellant on
June 25, 201 5 , a nd by the other parties on June 26, 2015. PFR File , Tab 1. The document provides, among other things, for the dismissal of the appeal. Id
., ¶ 1. ¶3 Bef ore 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, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they understand the terms, and that they want t he Board to enforce those terms. See
PFR File , Tab 1, ¶ 8

. ¶4 I n 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 en tered into it, and whether the subject matter of this appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction; that is, whether a law, rule, or regulation grants the Board the authority to decide such a matter. 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 this appeal

— the rem oval of a full

- time F ederal employee in the competitive service

— is within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7701 (c) and 5 C.F.R . § 1201.56 (a)(ii). IAF, Tab 4, Subtab 4a at 16. Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for appeal “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appea l) is appropriate
under these circumstances
, and we accept the settlement agreement into the
record for enforc ement purposes. ¶5 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protecti on Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, sec tion 1201.113 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201. 113 ).3

NOTICE TO THE PARTIE S OF THEIR ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any
communi cations between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182 (a).

NOTICE TO THE APPELL ANT 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 c alendar 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). 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,4

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 United States Court of A ppeals 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 app ellants before the Federal
Circuit . The Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any att orney 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