UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

LAURA G. REEVES,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DA-0752-12-0048-X-1

DATE: March 15, 2023

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Laura G. Reeves, Athens, Texas, pro se.

Patrick A. Keen, Shreveport, Louisiana, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member2

FINAL ORDER

¶1 On August 24, 2017, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial 

decision finding the agency in noncompliance with the administrative judge’s 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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 Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three-member Board 

completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
2

March 15, 2012 initial decision, which dismissed the appellant’s removal appeal 

based on a settlement agreement. For the reasons discussed below, we find the 

agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for enforcement. 

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE

¶2 The agency removed the appellant effective October 9, 2011, and she filed a 

timely appeal with the Board. Reeves v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB 

Docket No. DA-0752-12-0048-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 8, Compliance 

Initial Decision (CID) at 2. During the pendency of her appeal, the appellant and 

the agency entered into a settlement agreement which provided, in relevant part, 

that the agency would cancel the removal action; replace the Standard Form 

(SF) 50 in the appellant’s Official Personnel File (OPF) showing that the 

appellant was removed with an SF-50 showing that she resigned; expunge all 

traces of the removal action from her OPF; pay the appellant $75,000; and pay the 

appellant’s attorney $17,000. CID at 2; Reeves v. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-12-0048-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), 

Tab 11. The administrative judge entered the settlement agreement into the 

record for enforcement purposes and dismissed the appeal. IAF, Tab 12, Initial 

Decision. The initial decision became the final decision of the Board after neither 

party petitioned for review.

¶3 On June 22, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the 

settlement agreement and the March 15, 2012 decision, asserting that the agency 

had failed to remove from her OPF the SF-50 showing the removal action and 

failed to substitute an SF-50 showing that she resigned. CF, Tab 1 at 3, Tab 6 

at 1. On August 24, 2017, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial 

decision finding that the agency had breached the settlement agreement by failing 

to expunge references to the removal from the appellant’s OPF and failing to 

replace the removal SF-50 with an SF-50 showing that the appellant had resigned. 

CID at 4. The administrative judge ordered the agency to “ensure that the 
3

appellant’s official personnel file reflects a resignation and is purged of all 

reference to the removal action and provide an SF-50 reflecting the removal3to 

the appellant and to the Board.” Id. The administrative judge further ordered the 

appellant to inform the Board whether she sought specific performance of the 

settlement agreement or complete rescission of the agreement. CID at 4-5. The 

administrative judge informed the appellant that if she sought rescission, she 

would be required to repay any funds disbursed pursuant to the settlement 

agreement (i.e., the $75,000 payment to her and the $17,000 payment to her 

attorney). Neither party filed any submission with the Clerk of the Board within 

the time limit set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114. As such, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.183(b)-(c), the administrative judge’s findings of noncompliance became 

final, and the appellant’s petition for enforcement was referred to the Board for a 

final decision on issues of compliance. Reeves v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-12-0048-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), 

Tab 2. 

¶4 On September 6, 2017, the appellant filed a pleading titled “Proposal for 

Settlement and Request for Specific Performance.” CRF, Tab 1. Thereafter, the 

appellant filed four submissions which, like her September 6, 2017 filing, stated 

that the agency had failed to comply with the settlement agreement and sought 

specific performance of the settlement agreement, but also appeared to seek to 

renegotiate the settlement agreement by proposing new terms (including 

restoration to duty, payment of back pay, and payment of additional funds beyond 

those specified in the settlement agreement). CRF, Tab 3 at 3,

4

Tab 6 at 3-4,

Tab 7 at 3, Tab 10 at 13-14, 37-38. The appellant also contended that the agency 

 

3 We believe the instruction to provide an SF-50 reflecting a removal is a typographical 

error. In context, it is clear that the administrative judge intended to require an SF-50 

reflecting the appellant’s resignation, and it is clear that the parties interpreted the 

instruction consistent with its intent rather than its literal language.

4

The appellant also filed an additional pleading which appears to be an exact duplicate 

of Tab 3. CRF, Tab 4.
4

had not complied with the original settlement agreement “in whole” because its 

compliance evidence addressed only the resignation issue, and not whether it had 

paid her the funds specified in the agreement. CRF, Tab 6 at 4. 

¶5 On October 12, 2017, the agency submitted a pleading purporting to show 

compliance with the instructions set forth in the compliance initial decision. 

CRF, Tab 5 at 4-7.

ANALYSIS

¶6 A settlement agreement is a contract, and the appellant, as the 

non-breaching party, bears the burden to prove “material noncompliance” with a 

term of the contract. Lutz v. U.S. Postal Services, 485 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). The agency must produce relevant and material evidence of its 

compliance with the agreement. Haefele v. Department of the Air Force, 

108 M.S.P.R. 630, ¶7 (2008). Upon proving a material breach of the contract, the 

appellant may choose between specific performance or rescission of the 

settlement agreement. Sanchez v. Department of Homeland Security, 

110 M.S.P.R. 573, ¶7 (2009); Powell v. Department of Commerce, 98 M.S.P.R. 

398, ¶14 (2005).

¶7 As a preliminary matter, although the appellant’s submissions attempt to 

impose new financial and equitable obligations on the agency, it does not appear 

that she is challenging the administrative judge’s compliance initial decision 

because she has requested specific performance of the original settlement 

agreement. E.g., CFR, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 3 at 3, Tab 6 at 4. In view of this request, 

and because the appellant has no basis or authority to impose additional 

obligations on the agency beyond those established in the existing settlement 

agreement, we decline to enter the appellant’s new “terms” into the record for 

enforcement. Rather, we now proceed to determine whether the agency’s 

pleading establishes compliance with the existing settlement agreement.

¶8 In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge ordered the 

agency to submit evidence that it had replaced the removal SF-50 with an SF-50 
5

showing that the appellant had resigned and to expunge all references to the 

removal from the appellant’s OPF. CID at 4. The agency’s October 12, 2017 

submission states that “as of August 17th[, 2017], the resignation had been 

removed from appellant’s personnel file.” CRF, Tab 5 at 4. The agency did not 

include a sworn affidavit or declaration attesting to this claim, but the agency 

submitted such an affidavit during the compliance proceeding before the 

administrative judge. CF, Tab 7 at 9 (attesting that the electronic OPF had been 

“recoded” to reflect resignation rather than termination). 5 In addition, the agency 

submitted a copy of an SF-50 showing that the appellant had resigned, which it 

stated had been placed in her personnel file. Id. at 5, 6.

¶9 In her submissions responding to the agency’s evidence, the appellant did 

not challenge the agency’s evidence regarding the resignation issue. Instead, she 

claimed that the agency remained noncompliant with the settlement agreement 

because it “only discussed the resignation, not the agreement as a whole.” E.g., 

CRF, Tab 6 at 4.6 But the resignation issue was the sole claim raised by the 

appellant in her petition for enforcement. CF, Tab 1 at 3, Tab 4 at 3, Tab 6 at 1. 

If the appellant now wishes to challenge other aspects of the agency’s compliance 

with the agreement, such as its payments to her or to her attorney, she must file a 

new enforcement proceeding with the appropriate regional office. 

¶10 We find that the agency has submitted evidence of compliance which the 

appellant has failed to rebut. We therefore find the agency in compliance wit h 

the settlement agreement and the final order in the underlying case, and DISMISS

 

5

It appears that the administrative judge did not consider this evidence, possibly 

because it was submitted after the record closed and, indeed, was submitted on the same 

day the compliance initial decision was issued. See CF, Tab 6 at 2 (the record closed 

on August 18, 2017); CID (Aug. 24, 2017). 

6

In her May 2, 2019 submission, the appellant claimed that the agency “has not 

complied with any of the Judges[sic] orders.” CRF, Tab 7 at 3. But the appellant 

offered no specific information to rebut the agency’s evidence of compliance and, as 

discussed above, her previous submission appeared to concede that the agency had 

complied.
6

the petition for enforcement. We DENY the appellant’s other non-substantive 

submissions, such as her request that the petition for enforcement be transferred 

to a federal court for resolution. CRF, Tab 11. This is the final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS7

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 

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 

 

7

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.
7

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 

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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a 

representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before 
8

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 

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 
9

(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. 8 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. 

 

8

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. 
10

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:

Washington, D.C.

 /s/ for 

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board