Opinion ID: 2674024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On August 10, 2009, Mr. Lazaro, a preference eligible veteran, applied for an Information Technology (IT) specialist position with the Miami VA Healthcare System. The vacancy announcement for this position described its “qualification requirements” as “[o]ne (1) year [of] specialized experience equivalent to at least the GS–9 level in [the] Federal Service.” Respondent’s Joint Appendix (R.A.) 63. The announcement also stipulated that certain levels of education could be substituted for this year of “specialized experience,” namely, a Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree, or three full years of progressively higher level graduate education leading to a Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree. Pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 4214(b), Mr. Lazaro was eligible for certain veterans’ preferences. Mr. Lazaro’s application stated that he had six months of experience as a medical coder at the GS–7 level with collateral duties as an assistant Automated Data Processing Application LAZARO v. DVA 3 Coordinator (ADPAC). 1 His application also specified that he had fifty-three credits of relevant educational experience. Finally, in the “Other Qualifications” section of his application, Mr. Lazaro indicated that he had experience as a “Computer Repair Tech[nician]” and had received “various incentive awards.” R.A. 32. The Human Resources Specialist who reviewed Mr. Lazaro’s application concluded that his experiences and education level fell short of the full year of specialized experience at the GS–9 level, or the educational equivalent thereof, necessary for the IT Specialist position. Accordingly, on September 2, 2009, Mr. Lazaro was informed by letter that he was not considered for the position. On August 30, 2010, after exhausting his rights before the Department of Labor, Mr. Lazaro filed an appeal with the Board, asserting that the VA violated 38 U.S.C. § 4214(b) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d) when it did not select him for the position of IT specialist. The Administrative Judge (AJ) concluded that the Board lacked authority to review the merits of the agency’s non-selection of Mr. 1 Mr. Lazaro’s assistant ADPAC position does not appear to have possessed a specific GS level designation, but he contends that this position carried a designation equivalent to the GS–9 level. According to the Human Resources Specialist that reviewed Mr. Lazaro’s application, “there is no grade level requirement for a service’s designated ADPAC, nor are the duties classified at any particular grade level.” R.A. 28. Nevertheless, Mr. Lazaro contends that other services, such as the Fiscal Service, do designate a GS level for their ADPACs: “appellant submits two promotion announcements of Fiscal Systems Analyst[s], showing that in the Fiscal Service they designate ADPAC[s] at the GS–9 level.” Appellant’s Br. 15. Mr. Lazaro has not submitted further evidence that his particular ADPAC position was designated at the GS–9 level. 4 LAZARO v. DVA Lazaro. The Board affirmed, and Mr. Lazaro appealed to this court. Reversing, we explained that “[t]here is simply no way to analyze whether a veteran’s preference rights were violated without examining the grounds upon which the veteran’s non-selection was predicated.” Lazaro, 666 F.3d at 1320. We then remanded Mr. Lazaro’s case to the Board for further consideration. On remand, the Board allowed the parties to submit supplemental evidence and argument regarding the propriety of the agency’s determination. The government submitted an additional declaration from the Human Resources Specialist that reviewed Mr. Lazaro’s application, and Mr. Lazaro submitted additional documentation of his qualifications for the position at issue— documentation which he did not include in his original application. On November 15, 2012, after reviewing the additional information presented, the Board denied Mr. Lazaro’s petition for review. The Board concluded that the declaration of the Human Recourses Specialist was credible, and “any asserted prior experience that the appellant raised for the first time on appeal” was “irrelevant because the appellant did not include it in his application for the position.” R.A. 10. Mr. Lazaro filed an appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).