Opinion ID: 2816908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Evidence Supports the Board’s As-

Text: sessment of Mr. Graves’s Qualifications None of the Board’s orders in this case required the DVA to provide a “side-by-side, requirement issue by requirement issue” comparison of Mr. Graves’s resume and application with the requirements for the MRT position at the GS-4 and GS-5 levels as Mr. Graves asserts. Rather, the August 2013 order required the DVA to: Submit a detailed explanation for the agency’s determination that the appellant is not qualified above the GS-4 level, including the relevant position description and requirements, the appellant’s complete application package, and a written and sworn determination by a qualified individual re- 6 GRAVES v. DVA garding the appellant’s qualifications for each grade level advertised. A. 59. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the DVA complied with this order. See A. 20–23. The DVA submitted a sworn statement by the Chief of HIMS that she reviewed Mr. Graves’s qualifications and determined that his application and resume did not demonstrate that he had three of the four knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the GS-5 level. For example, she determined Mr. Graves’s application did not show he had the ability to correctly apply the practical knowledge of laws and regulations related to the confidentiality of health information and the release of information from medical records. She acknowledged that Mr. Graves had earned a Certified Coding Specialist- Physician Based Certificate, but noted that it had lapsed because Mr. Graves did not complete the required continuing education to maintain it. A. 20–21, 71. The Chief of HIMS’s statement indicates that the DVA considered Mr. Graves’s relevant education and experience in assessing his qualification for the GS-5 level and constitutes substantial evidence in support of the determination that Mr. Graves was not qualified above the GS-4 level. 1 A. 22. On appeal, Mr. Graves argues that the Chief of HIMS’s assessment of his qualifications was not objective 1 Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Mr. Graves is not qualified above the GS-4 level, we need not address whether the Board’s role in a case such as this “is limited to determining whether the hiring agency improperly omitted, overlooked, or excluded a portion of the appellant’s experiences or work history in assessing his qualifications for the vacancy.” A. 22 (citing Miller v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 121 M.S.P.R. 88, ¶ 12 (2014)). GRAVES v. DVA 7 or credible and that she was biased against him. Appellant’s Br. 4–5. The Board found otherwise, explaining that the Chief of HIMS’s position and her at least six years of experience supervising professionals in medical health information work qualified her to make such determinations, and that she was credible and unbiased. A. 21. “[A]n evaluation of witness credibility is within the discretion of the Board and . . . , in general, such evaluations are ‘virtually unreviewable’ on appeal.” Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 618 F.3d 1306, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Mr. Graves has not presented an argument that merits second-guessing the Board. B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Board’s Finding that the DVA Removed the Non-Preference Eligible Individual From the MRT Position Following the Board’s August 2013 order, the DVA removed the non-preference eligible individual from the MRT position, transferring her to a position as a “Secretary.” The DVA submitted a standard OPM form docu- menting this personnel action to the Board. Nearly one month after her removal, the non-preference eligible individual was reappointed to the MRT position, as documented by a second standard OPM form the DVA submitted to the Board. In addition to these forms, the DVA submitted a sworn statement explaining its actions. A. 72–74. The Board’s March 2012 Final Order required that the non-preference eligible individual be removed from the MRT position at issue; it did not require that she be removed from all positions at the DVA. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the DVA removed the non-preference eligible individual from the MRT position. The Board did not err in determining that the “rule of three” and “pass over” requirements did not apply because Mr. Graves was not qualified for the reconstructed MRT 8 GRAVES v. DVA position. As this Court and the Board have explained, “the VEOA does not enable veterans to be considered for positions for which they are not qualified.” Lazaro v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Ramsey v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 87 M.S.P.R. 98, ¶ 9 (2000)). As discussed supra pp. 6–7, Mr. Graves was not qualified for the reconstructed MRT position, which was limited to the GS-8 level. As the Board found, the DVA was in compliance with the March 2012 Final Order when it reconstructed a lawful selection process. A. 24.