Opinion ID: 592303
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board's Jurisdictional Authority to Entertain Petitioner's Due Process Claim

Text: 16 Petitioner first contests the Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain his claim: that the Agency failed to give him any procedural safeguards when effecting his removal. He argues that because he was in the competitive service until 1985 (the date on which the FHLBB became an independent government corporation) when he became employed by the Agency in 1989 he reentered as a federal employee and was therefore entitled to return to a position in the competitive service. Petitioner contends that the Agency had no right to reinstate him as an excepted employee because pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 6.1(a) the Agency could not show that his position as an Examiner should have been one excepted from the competitive service. 17 The Board rejected Petitioner's argument concluding that OTS appointed the appellant to the excepted service as authorized by OPM [the Office of Personnel Management] [ (OPM) ]. Therefore ... he is not entitled to appeal to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A)(i). 18 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1) (Supp. II 1990), an employee who is entitled to appeal to the Board is defined as: 19 (A) an individual in the competitive service-- 20 (i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment; or 21 (ii) who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;(B) a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions-- 22 (i) in an Executive agency; or 23 (ii) in the United States Postal Service or Postal Rate Commission; and 24 (C) an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible)-- 25 (i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service; or 26 (ii) who has completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less;.... 27 As properly established by the Board, [t]he agency's proof demonstrated that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) placed all positions of OTS involved in the supervision of savings associations in the excepted service under schedule A as required by Civil Service Rule VI. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 6.1(b) (1992) OPM shall decide whether the duties of any particular position are such that it may be filled as an excepted position under the appropriate schedule. Here, the Agency appointed Petitioner to a position in the excepted service as authorized by OPM. Petitioner fails to cite any persuasive authority in support of his position that he was entitled to appeal his removal to the Board as an employee under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A). Moreover, because petitioner was removed from his position effective July 26, 1990, he is not entitled to appeal under section 7511(a)(1)(C). 5 U.S.C. § 7511 note (Supp. II 1990) (provision only applies to personnel actions taking effect on or after August 17, 1990). Accordingly, the Court rejects his position and affirms the decision of the Board. 28