Opinion ID: 2784511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Within-Grade Pay Increase

Text: Ms. Varnado continues to challenge the February 2007 denial of a within-grade pay increase. R.A. 15 n.4; Pet’r’s Br. at 41. The hearing officer did not address this claim. R.A. 1–5. The Board rejected the claim, concluding that it lacked proof of jurisdiction because Ms. Varnado “presented no evidence that she received a reconsideration decision,” which is “a jurisdictional prerequisite for an appeal of a denial of” such a pay increase. R.A. 15 n.4. Under 5 U.S.C. § 5335(a), a federal employee who does not already receive the highest salary available to an employee of his or her grade is entitled, under certain circumstances, to regular increases in pay. An employee who is denied such an increase based on unacceptable 8 VARNADO v. MSPB performance may seek reconsideration of the decision, and if the decision remains unchanged, the employee may thereafter appeal to the Board. § 5335(c). We have held that the Board “has no jurisdiction over an appeal from the withholding of a within-grade increase unless the employee had sought reconsideration of that action by the agency in accordance with the agency’s requirements.” Goines, 258 F.3d at 1292. But no evidence has been presented to us indicating that Ms. Varnado was properly informed of how she could show jurisdiction over her wage-increase claim. Based on Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the Board routinely remands for further action by the administrative judge in situations where the petitioner has not received information regarding how to establish Board jurisdiction over his or her claim. Id. at 643–44; e.g., Ney v. Dep’t of Commerce, 115 M.S.P.R. 204, 209–10 (2010); Guzman v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 566, 572–73 (2010) (“[B]ecause the administrative judge never informed the appellant of his burden and elements of proof for establishing such a claim, we must remand the appeal so that the appellant might receive such notice.”). On the record before us, we find it appropriate to remand this matter to the Board, particularly in light of Ms. Varnado’s pro se status. See Siman v. Dep’t of Air Force, 80 M.S.P.R. 306, 310–11 (1998); Boughton v. Dep’t of Agr., 94 M.S.P.R. 347, 350 (2003). We draw no conclusions about whether Ms. Varnado was actually notified about how to establish jurisdiction, about the issue of whether a reconsideration request was made, denied, or ignored, or about whether Ms. Varnado timely presented the wage-increase claim. We note that Ms. Varnado states that she sought reconsideration and at least implies that it was denied. Pet’r’s Br. at 18. She also has submitted certain allegedly relevant documents. E.g., Pet’r’s App. at Ex. 1 and Ex. 28. Moreover, even if she did not receive a reconsideration decision, the Board VARNADO v. MSPB 9 has elsewhere indicated that jurisdiction may rest on an unreasonable refusal to act on a request for reconsideration. Jack v. Dep’t of Commerce, 77 M.S.P.R. 332, 335 (2005). The government has not addressed Ms. Varnado’s wage-increase claim in its brief in this court. Therefore, we think it appropriate to remand this claim to the Board.