UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

JOHN PAUL JONES, III,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DE-3330-15-0105-I-1

DATE: July 23, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

John Paul Jones, III, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pro se.

James E. Simpson, Washington, D.C., 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 

denied his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Generally, we grant petitions such as this 

one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute 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. 2

 Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM 

 2 We have considered the appellant’s arguments on review, most of which pertain to the 

agency’s actions in his prior VEOA appeals and his analysis of the “disgraceful 

treatment of veterans” and the Board’s obligations to veterans, and we find no basis for 

disturbing the initial decision. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-22. Contrary 

to the appellant’s arguments on review, the Board may decide a VEOA claim on the 

merits without holding a hearing when there is no genuine issue of material fact and one 

party must prevail as a matter of law. Id. at 8, 21; see Davis v. Department of Defense, 

105 M.S.P.R. 604, ¶ 12 (2007). Under 5 U.S.C. § 3311(2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d), 

the Board’s role is limited to determining whether the hiring agency improperly 

omitted, overlooked, or excluded a portion of the appellant’s experiences or work 

history in assessing his qualifications for the vacancy, and the Board will not reevaluate 

the weight the agency accorded these experiences in reaching its decision that the 

appellant was not qualified for a given position of employment. Miller v. Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 121 M.S.P.R. 88, ¶ 12 (2014). Although the appellant 

argues that the administrative judge should not have accepted the agency’s declaration 

that he lacked the required 1 year of qualifying experience for the position, he fails to 

identify any specific qualifying experience or work history included in his application 

which the agency purportedly omitted, overlooked, or excluded in determining that he 

was not qualified. PFR File, Tab 1 at 13; see Miller, 121 M.S.P.R. 88, ¶ 12. Regarding

the appellant’s argument that the administrative judge was biased, we find no evidence 

that the administrative judge’s comments and actions in this appeal show “a deep-seated 

favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” PFR File, Tab 1 

at 8; see Bieber v. Department of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 

Although the appellant also claims that he was denied the opportunity to prove that the 

agency committed prohibited personnel practices, the Board has no jurisdiction under 

VEOA to consider this claim. PFR File, Tab 1 at 14; see Goldberg v. Department of 

Homeland Security, 99 M.S.P.R. 660, ¶ 11 (2005). The appellant offers no new and 
3

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

§ 1201.113(b). 

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. 

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.

 

material evidence or argument on review that was unavailable before the record closed, 

and he has not shown that administrative judge erroneously interpreted a statute or 

regulation. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115. 
4

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