UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

KAMILIA S. ELTAHER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

NY-0752-17-0012-X-1

DATE: May 25, 2023

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Kamilia S. Eltaher, Edison, New Jersey, pro se.

Jane Yoon, Brooklyn, New York, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member2

FINAL ORDER

¶1 This case is before the Board on the appellant’s petition for enforcement of 

the administrative judge’s January 18, 2018 decision in her appeal, which

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

reversed her removal and ordered the agency to cancel the action and 

retroactively reinstate her effective September 6, 2016. Eltaher v. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-17-0012-I-1, Initial Appeal File, 

Tab 63, Initial Decision. For the reasons discussed below, we find the agency is 

in compliance and DISMISS the petition for enforcement.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE

¶2 In a compliance initial decision issued July 11, 2018, the administrative 

judge found that, although the agency had restored the appellant to her position 

and made a lump sum payment of back pay, it had provided no explanation of its 

computations nor any information relating to the interest on back pay and the 

benefits to which the appellant was entitled. Eltaher v. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-17-0012-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 23, 

Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 4. She also noted that the agency had 

provided no information relating to the payments due the appellant for two pay 

periods following her reinstatement which the appellant stated she had not 

received.3 Accordingly, the administrative judge ordered the agency to submit 

explanations of its back pay award and the interest on the back pay, the status of 

the appellant’s pay for Pay Periods 3 and 4 of 2018, and whether the appellant 

had been credited with the leave to which she was entitled for the period of her 

removal. CID at 5. The order directed the agency to submit to the Clerk of the 

Board within 35 days any statement of compliance with supporting evidence and 

a narrative explaining in detail why its evidence satisfied the requirements set 

forth in the order. Id. 

 

3

The appellant also sought compensation for the tax consequences of her lump sum 

back pay award and for medical expenses she incurred during the back pay period, but 

the administrative judge correctly found that the Board lacks authority for such 

remedies. See Holtgrewe v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 65 M.S.P.R. 137, 

140 (1994); Kennedy v. United States Postal Service, 42 M.S.P.R. 429, 432 (1989).
3

¶3 On August 15, 2018, the agency submitted its statement of compliance and 

supporting evidence to comply with the administrative judge’s order. Eltaher v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-17-0012-X-1, 

Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1. On the same day, the Clerk of the Board 

issued an Acknowledgment Order that notified the appellant that she could

respond to the agency’s submission by filing written arguments with the Clerk 

within 20 calendar days of service of the agency’s submission. CRF, Tab 2. The 

Acknowledgement Order also stated that, if the appellant did not respond to the 

agency’s evidence of compliance within 20 days, the Board may assume that 

appellant is satisfied and may dismiss the petition for enforcement. Id.

¶4 In its submission, the agency provided evidence that it had paid the 

appellant back pay and interest due for the back pay period (September 6, 2016, 

through February 5, 2018). CRF, Tab 1. The agency explained the basis for the 

two payments that were issued to the appellant. The first calculation included 

most of the back pay due as well as the pay owed for 2018 Pay Period 3, less the 

appellant’s interim earnings, in the gross amount of $177,283.25. The second 

calculation included the remaining back pay and the interest on all the back pay 

due, $7,351.48, as well at the pay owed for 2018 Pay Period 4, in the gross 

amount of $21,864.383. Id. at 4. The agency’s evidence showed the deductions 

made from these amounts with the resulting adjusted amounts paid to the 

appellant, $75,226.14 and $19,439.88. Id. at 4. The agency also submitted the 

calculations that it used to determine the amount of interest that was paid the 

appellant.4 Id. at 14-19, 28-30. Finally, the agency presented tables of the 

appellant’s post-reinstatement accumulation of annual and sick leave that show 

the initial leave amounts used. Id. at 33. In response to an order to submit the 

basis for these numbers, the agency submitted on November 11, 2018, additional 

evidence explaining the calculations on which they were based. CRF, Tab 4 at 4, 

 

4

The agency’s interest determination is based on the online interest calculator approved 

by the Office of Personnel Management.
4

9-11. On June 11, 2020, the agency also submitted evidence that it had awarded 

additional back pay due for the appellant’s Step 9 pay increase that occurred 

during the back pay period. CRF, Tab 24. 

¶5 The appellant has challenged the agency’s back pay and restored leave 

calculations, but does not identify specific errors in these calculations, which on 

their face show compliance with the Board’s order. CRF, Tab 30. The appellant 

has objected to the agency’s delay in restoring her leave, which she states resulted 

in some absences being treated as absence without pay. Id. at 5. The agency’s 

alleged error concerns her service after the close of the back pay period and is 

thus outside the scope of this case. The same reason excludes the appellant’s 

claim that she should be paid for transit benefits she unfairly lost after her return 

to work because her application for their restoration was found incomplete. 5Id. 

at 4. The appellant’s claim that the agency did not properly calculate her 

retirement contributions in December 2018, id. at 4-5, either reiterates her back 

pay claims rejected above or is based on later actions outside the back pay period. 

Her claim that the agency wrongly denied her compensation benefits for an injury 

at work that occurred in January 2020, id. at 6, is also one that does not pertain to 

whether the agency retroactively restored her to duty. The appellant has not 

otherwise shown that the agency has failed to properly restore her.

¶6 Accordingly, we find that the agency is in compliance and dismiss the 

appellant’s petition for enforcement. This is the final decision of the Merit 

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

Federal Regulation, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)1).

 

5

The agency notes that when she submitted a complete application, the benefits were 

restored. CRF, Tab 22 at 4-5.
5

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS6

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 

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: 

 

6

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.
6

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. 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 
7

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 

(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
8

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. 7 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 

 

7

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.
9

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