UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

EDMUND J. RAINSFORD,

Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-0752-16-0513-I-4

DATE: February 23, 2024

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Edmund J. Rainsford, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, pro se.

Asim Hemant Modi, Chicago, Illinois, for the agency.

Matthew C. Miller, Baltimore, Maryland, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

affirmed the agency’s removal action. On petition for review, the appellant

argues only that his due process rights have been compromised because the record

citations in the initial decision refer to tabs and pages but “[t]here is no

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 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).
[Board]-generated [t]ab/page designation on either the electronic or printed

versions of the [Board] case file.” Generally, we grant petitions such as this one

only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous

findings of material fact; 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 administrative 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. 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, 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). 

The appellant’s sole contention on review that the appeal files are not

tabbed or paginated is incorrect. During the proceedings below, the appeal was

dismissed without prejudice and refiled three times; thus, there are four docket

numbers associated with this appeal. See Rainsford v. Social Security

Administration, MSPB Docket Nos. SF-0752-16-0513-I-1, SF-0752-16-0513-I-2,

SF-0752-16-0513-I-3, and SF-0752-16-0513-I-4. As the administrative judge

explained in the initial decision, he cited to each appeal file by indicating “Initial

Appeal File (IAF)” and the applicable iteration number; for example,

IAF-1 corresponds to the appeal file in MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-16-0513-I-1,

and IAF-4 corresponds to the appeal file in MSPB Docket No.

SF-0752-16-0513-I-4. Rainsford v. Social Security Administration,

MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-16-0513-I-4, Refiled Appeal File, Tab 22,

Initial Decision (ID) at 1 n.1. Some of the administrative judge’s citations also

specified the tab number within each appeal file and the page number within each

2
tab. ID. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion that the appeal files are not tabbed,

each document within each appeal file has a tab number, as they do in all Board

appeals. Indeed, the electronic docket reports provided by the appellant on

review clearly reflect that each document has a corresponding tab number, which

is indicated in the first column under “Tab.” Petition for Review File, Tab 1

at 4-8. In addition, as explained by the administrative judge, each document in

the Board’s e-Appeal repository is paginated. ID at 1 n.1. 

Although the appellant broadly claims on review that “[i]t is impossible to

decipher the location of any of the [a]dministrative judge’s citations, let alone

prepare a rebuttal” to the initial decision, he has not in fact identified a single

document that he was unable to locate or shown that his inability to locate such a

document was due to error by the administrative judge. Even if he had made such

a showing, he has not shown that such error implicated his due process rights or

affected the outcome of this appeal. See Cleveland Board of Education v.

Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-48 (1985) (setting forth the due process rights to

which a tenured public employee being deprived of his property interest in

continued employment is entitled); Panter v. Department of the Air Force,

22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (holding that an adjudicatory error that is not

prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an

initial decision). 

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS2

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By

statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such

review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).

Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most

2

 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

3
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their

jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time

limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you

should contact that forum for more information. 

(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the

court within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). 

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit 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, 10, 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

4
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of

discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination

claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems

Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative

receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be

entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any

requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding

all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

5
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision. 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the

address of the EEOC is: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement

Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal

for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or other protected

activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your

judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of

allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other

than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or

(D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 3

3

 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,

132 Stat. 1510. 

6
The court of appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days of the

date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). 

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit 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, 10, 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

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Gina K. Grippando

Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

7