Opinion ID: 4533205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Searcy Fails to Establish Jurisdiction

Text: Over a Claim Against DOL-VETS and OSC under VEOA To establish the Board jurisdiction over a VEOA claim, Searcy must: (1) show that he exhausted his remedies with the Department of Labor and (2) make nonfrivolous al- legations that (i) he is preference eligible within the meaning of the VEOA, (ii) the action(s) at issue took place on or after the October 30, 1998 enact- ment date of the VEOA, and (iii) the agency vio- lated his rights under a statute or regulation relating to veteran’s preference. Lazaro v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (brackets omitted). The Board held that Searcy’s claims could not meet these requirements for three reasons: (1) Searcy presented no authority to support the proposition that declining to reopen an investigation is actionable under VEOA, (2) VEOA contemplates investigation of employing agencies not the investigatory body itself, and (3) Searcy’s allegations relate not to DOL-VETS or OSC violating his rights under a statute or regulation relating to veterans’ preference, but to the investigatory agency’s case processing. Decision on Appeal, 2017 MSPB LEXIS 1239, at . Searcy does not appear to challenge the Board’s conclusions. See Appellant’s Inf. Br. at 15 (“The Board is correct that appellant never intended to state a VEOA claim as a result of having exhausted his remedies . . . .”). For completeness, however, we agree with the Board that Searcy indisputably fails to make any nonfrivolous allegation that DOL-VETS or OSC violated his rights under a statute or regulation relating to veteran’s Case: 19-2217 Document: 41 Page: 9 Filed: 05/11/2020 SEARCY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 9 preference by declining to reopen and investigate his complaint of his 1977 separation from the agency. We thus affirm the Board’s holding that Searcy failed to establish the Board’s jurisdiction over a VEOA claim against DOL-VETS and OSC.