UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

ZAINAB MANSARAY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

PH-0752-15-0174-I-1

DATE: July 15, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Zainab Mansaray, Lowell, Massachusetts, pro se.

Paul V. Usera, Bedford, Massachusetts, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

dismissed her removal appeal as untimely filed. Generally, we grant petitions 

such as this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of 

material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the 

judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were 

not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and 

the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence 

or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not 

available when the record closed. See Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this 

appeal, and based on the following points and authorities, we conclude that the 

petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the 

petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM 

the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113(b). 

¶2 The agency removed the appellant from her position as a Nursing Assistant 

at the Department of Veterans Affairs effective December 5, 2014. Initial Appeal 

File (IAF), Tab 5 at 65. In the removal decision, the agency informed the 

appellant that she could file an appeal with the Board no later than 30 calendar 

days after she received the decision or after the effective date of her removal, 

whichever date was later. Id. at 66. It is undisputed that the appellant received a 

copy of the removal decision on November 25, 2014, before her removal became 

effective on December 5, 2014, and that she filed her Board appeal 8 days after 

the filing deadline on January 12, 2015. IAF, Tab 1, Tab 5 at 65, 68, Tab 13, 

Initial Decision (ID) at 2, 4. 

¶3 The agency filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed, arguing 

that the appellant offered no excuse for her untimely filing. IAF, Tab 5 at 8-9. In 

the motion, the agency set forth the appellant’s burden of proof on the timeliness 

issue and identified the factors that she was required to prove to establish good 

cause for her filing delay. Id. at 9. The appellant opposed the agency’s motion,

arguing that the administrative judge should waive the filing deadline because 

“[t]he Ebola outbreak killed two of [her] sisters and a cousin in early 
3

December 2014,” and she was unable “to concentrate on anything else” and file 

her appeal. IAF, Tab 6 at 1. 

¶4 The agency responded by arguing that the appellant’s ability to make

Facebook posts in December 2014, consisting of “funny videos and positive 

comments” that were inconsistent with “what one would expect to read if the 

Appellant had recently lost a family member,” showed that she was capable of 

filing a timely appeal with the Board. IAF, Tab 8 at 5. The agency submitted

screenshots from the appellant’s Facebook page and noted that there were no

posts about a death in her family or condolences from friends. Id. at 5, 8-17. 

Based on the foregoing, the agency argued that the appellant failed to show good 

cause for her filing delay. Id. at 5. The administrative judge ordered the 

appellant to respond to the agency’s submission on or before March 2, 2015. 

IAF, Tab 9. The day after issuing that order, the administrative judge received 

the appellant’s statement arguing the merits of her appeal and reasserting that she 

lost three family members to Ebola in early December 2014, in Sierra Leone. 

IAF, Tab 10. 

¶5 On March 3, 2015, the administrative judge issued an initial decision

dismissing the appeal as untimely filed without good cause shown. ID at 1, 5. 

Although he expressed sympathy for the appellant’s loss, the administrative judge 

found that she failed to exercise due diligence in filing her appeal. ID at 4-5. In 

reaching his decision, the administrative judge found it undisputed that the 

agency gave the removal letter to the appellant before her removal became 

effective on December 5, 2014; therefore, her appeal was due on January 4, 2015, 

and she filed her appeal 8 days late. ID at 4. The administrative judge also found 

that the appellant did not dispute that the removal decision clearly stated the 

deadline for filing her appeal with the Board. ID at 5. In addition, the 

administrative judge found that the appellant failed to rebut the agency’s evidence 

of her lighthearted posts on Facebook indicating that, although she may have 

experienced loss, she still was fully functional and could have filed her appeal on 
4

time. Id. The appellant filed a timely petition for review of the initial decision, 

and the agency responded in opposition to her petition. Petition for Review 

(PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.

¶6 An appeal must be filed with the Board no later than 30 days after the 

effective date of the action being challenged or 30 days after receipt of the 

agency’s decision, whichever is later. ID at 3; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b). Any 

late-filed appeal will be dismissed as untimely unless the appellant shows good 

cause for the filing delay. ID at 3; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c). To establish good 

cause for the untimely filing of an appeal, a party must show that she exercised 

due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of the case. 

ID at 3-4; Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). 

To determine if an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider the 

length of the delay, the reasonableness of her excuse and her showing of due 

diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented 

evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her

ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune 

which similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely file her

petition. ID at 4; Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 

(1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table). If the appellant shows good 

cause for the untimely filing of her appeal, waiver of the filing deadline is 

appropriate absent a showing that the delay in filing caused substantial prejudice 

to the agency. See Walls v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 29 F.3d 1578, 

1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

¶7 On review, the pro se appellant argues that she exercised due diligence in 

filing her appeal, that she proved good cause to waive the filing time limit, and 

that the agency would not be prejudiced by reopening her appeal. PFR File, 

Tab 1 at 2. She states that she would have refuted the agency’s allegations about 

her posting on Facebook if she had been aware of the agency’s assertions, and 
5

that the Facebooks posts were made by her friends. 2 Id. at 1. She further argues, 

inter alia, that it was a very stressful time because she was completely 

preoccupied with mourning the dead and figuring out how to help her other 

family members in the Ebola holding centers in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Id. 

¶8 For the first time on review, the appellant also submits certificates from the 

Government of Sierra Leone, Ministry of Health and Sanitation, confirming the 

Ebola related deaths on December 6, 2014, of two people who share her last 

name, and the Ebola related death of a third person on January 3, 2015. Id. 

at 3-5. The appellant states that documentary proof of death from Sierra Leone 

was previously unavailable to her because of the Ebola crisis. Id. at 2. Upon 

considering the appellant’s evidence and arguments on review, we find no reason 

to disturb the initial decision dismissing her appeal as untimely filed without 

good cause. The appellant’s general statement that she was under stress from the 

deaths in her family does not establish good cause for her untimely filed appeal. 

See Robinson v. Office of Personnel Management, 56 M.S.P.R. 325, 327 (finding 

that a general allegation that an appellant is under stress does not establish good 

cause for an untimely filing), aff’d, 5 F.3d 1505 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Table); see also 

Virgil v. U.S. Postal Service, 75 M.S.P.R. 109, 113 (1997). 

¶9 In reaching our decision, we accept as true the appellant’s evidence and 

argument that she lost three family members in the Ebola epidemic in Sierra 

Leone between the effective date of her removal and the time limit for filing her 

appeal. We also accord no probative value to the Facebook postings submitted by 

the agency on appeal as to the existence or depth of her grief. We nonetheless 

 2 The appellant does not explain why she was unaware of the agency’s evidence and 

argument concerning her Facebook posts, which the agency mailed to her on 

February 8, 2015, almost 1 month before her March 2, 2015 deadline for responding to 

the agency’s submission on appeal. IAF, Tab 8 at 18, Tab 9 at 1. Because the appellant

has not shown that she based her argument about the Facebook posts on new and 

material evidence that was previously unavailable despite her due diligence, the Board

will not consider her argument on review. See Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 

4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980). 
6

find that the agency properly informed the appellant of the time limit for filing 

her appeal, and she failed to provide evidence that the death of her relatives in 

Sierra Leone, or any other circumstances beyond her control, affected her ability 

to file a timely appeal or to request an extension of the filing deadline. See Tyler 

v. U.S. Postal Service, 87 M.S.P.R. 460, 463 (2001) (the appellant must show 

good cause for not seeking an extension in advance of the filing date); Virgil, 

75 M.S.P.R. at 113 (rejecting the appellant’s claim that caring for his brother who 

was ill and died of cancer and tending to matters pertaining to the death of his 

uncle established good cause for his untimely filed petition); Moorman, 

68 M.S.P.R. at 62-63; see also Hamilton v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 15 F.

App’x 867, 868-69 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Board’s dismissal of an appeal 

as untimely filed by 8 days because the pro se appellant received specific notice

of the filing deadline and she failed to prove that taking care of her father

affected her ability to file a timely appeal).

3

 We therefore deny the appellant’s

petition for review of the initial decision that dismissed her appeal as untimely 

filed. 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT 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 calendar 

days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 

 3 The Board may rely on nonprecedential Federal Circuit decisions if it finds, as it does 

here, the court’s reasoning persuasive. Encardo v. Office of Personnel Management, 

116 M.S.P.R. 301 ¶ 12 n.6 (2011). 
7

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, 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 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.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board