NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

SUSAN M. BARELA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2010-3048 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case No. DC1221090641-W-1. 

___________________________ 

Decided: July 13, 2010 

___________________________ 

SUSAN M. BARELA, of Fairfax, Virginia, pro se. 

MICHAEL A. CARNEY, General Attorney, Office of the 

General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of 

Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief 

were JAMES M. EISENMAN, General Counsel, and KEISHA 

DAWN BELL, Deputy General Counsel. 

__________________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 
BARELA v. MSPB 2

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Susan M. Barela challenges the decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board dismissing her Individual Right 

of Action (“IRA”) appeal. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On June 18, 2009, Ms. Barela filed an IRA appeal under 5 U.S.C. § 1221 and requested relief under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 1221(e), 

2302(b)(8). In her appeal, Ms. Barela alleged that the 

Department of Defense took a personnel action against 

her in June 1991. Ms. Barela also stated that she submitted a request to the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) on 

June 15, 2009, but that as of June 18, 2009, she had not 

received written notice of her right to appeal. As to her 

alleged whistleblowing disclosures, Ms. Barela appears to 

claim that she made disclosures with respect to (1) allegedly inappropriate action taken by an administrative 

judge during a prior appeal, as found in the record of that 

case, and (2) allegedly inappropriate action taken by 

various military members, employees, and contractors as 

described in “past submissions, pending submissions, 

[and] future submissions” for the time period from 1991 

through the year 2050. In her IRA appeal, Ms. Barela 

also stated that, on June 15, 2009, she requested that the 

Board stay the personnel action underlying her claim. 

When asked to explain why a stay should be granted, Ms. 

Barela stated, “See Previous Submissions/Whistleblower 

Appeal/Board Record/Pending Submissions etc., from 

1991-2050.” 
3 BARELA v. MSPB

On July 8, 2009, the administrative judge who was 

assigned to the case dismissed Ms. Barela’s appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. The administrative judge first noted 

that Ms. Barela failed to respond to a “show cause” order 

directing her to file evidence and argument to establish 

that the Board had jurisdiction over her IRA appeal. The 

administrative judge then held that the Board lacked 

jurisdiction over Ms. Barela’s appeal on the following 

grounds: (1) Ms. Barela “failed to exhaust her remedies 

before the OSC”; (2) she “failed to make a nonfrivolous 

allegation that she made a protected whistleblowing 

disclosure”; and (3) she “failed to make a nonfrivolous 

allegation that a protected whistleblowing disclosure was 

a contributing factor in any personnel action covered by 

the WPA.” The administrative judge denied her request 

for a stay of the personnel action underlying her whistleblower claim for similar reasons. The full Board denied 

Ms. Barela’s petition for review, and Ms. Barela now 

petitions for review by this court. 

DISCUSSION

Based on the record and on Ms. Barela’s informal 

brief, it appears that Ms. Barela seeks to use this IRA 

appeal to review decisions made in prior cases that she 

has brought. However, 5 U.S.C. § 1221 does not authorize 

an appellant to challenge prior decisions that have become final. Because the Board has jurisdiction only 

where jurisdiction is specifically granted by statute or 

regulation, see Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 

1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc), the Board correctly 

dismissed Ms. Barela’s IRA appeal. 

To the extent that Ms. Barela seeks corrective action 

in response to a violation of the WPA, the Board properly 

determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Barela’s 
BARELA v. MSPB 4

appeal. First, the Board did not err in ruling that Ms. 

Barela failed to show that she exhausted her remedies 

before the OSC, because Ms. Barela produced no evidence 

or argument on that issue. See Pasley v. Dep’t of the 

Treasury, 109 M.S.P.R. 105, 112 (2008) (“The appellant 

bears the burden of showing that he exhausted his remedies before [the] OSC.”). In particular, 5 U.S.C. § 

1214(a)(3) permits an IRA appellant to file an IRA appeal 

with the Board in two situations: (1) within 60 days after 

receiving notice from the OSC that it has completed its 

investigation, or (2) after 120 days from the date that the 

IRA appellant sought corrective action from the OSC if 

the OSC has not informed the appellant that it will seek 

corrective action on the appellant’s behalf. Ms. Barela 

represented that she had not received notice that the OSC 

had completed its investigation and that she filed her IRA 

appeal three days after submitting her complaint to the 

OSC. Because it appears that Ms. Barela did not satisfy 

either requirement of section 1214(a)(3), the Board was 

correct to dismiss her appeal for failure to exhaust her 

administrative remedies. 

Second, the Board correctly concluded that Ms. Barela 

failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that she made a 

protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). See

Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 528 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). The statements in her IRA appeal concerning her 

alleged disclosures are inadequate to establish jurisdiction because they are vague, conclusory, and unsupported 

by any evidentiary allegations. See McDonnell v. Dep’t of 

Agric., 108 M.S.P.R. 443, 447 (2008). 

Third, the Board properly held that Ms. Barela failed 

to make a nonfrivolous allegation that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency’s decision to 

take a personnel action against her. See Kahn, 528 F.3d 
5 BARELA v. MSPB

at 1341. Even at this juncture, it is unclear how Ms. 

Barela regards any protected disclosure that she may 

have made to be related to some qualifying personnel 

action taken against her by the agency. 

Because Ms. Barela failed, on multiple grounds, to establish the Board’s jurisdiction over her IRA appeal, we 

uphold the Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED