Opinion ID: 2795023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review and Timeliness

Text: Because the Board “has broad discretion to control its own docket,” this court must “affirm the board’s decision to dismiss an untimely filed petition for review unless the decision is shown to have been ‘arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Olivares v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 17 F.3d 386, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). This court is bound by the Board’s factual findings “unless those findings are not supported by substantial evidence.” Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 1 The Administrative Judge (“AJ”) dismissed the appeal as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction. Resp’t’s App. 15. In its Final Decision, the Board modified the Initial Decision so that it could only address the untimeliness issue thus making a jurisdictional determination unnecessary. Id. at 3 n.3. 4 ALEXANDER v. MSPB The WPA sets specific deadlines for filing and 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5 elaborates on those deadlines. It states an action must be filed: (1) No later than 65 days after the date of issu- ance of the Special Counsel’s written notification to the appellant that it was terminating its investigation of the appellant's allegations or, if the appellant shows that the Special Counsel’s notification was received more than 5 days after the date of issuance, within 60 days after the date the appellant received the Special Counsel’s notification; or, (2) At any time after the expiration of 120 days, if the Special Counsel has not notified the appellant that it will seek corrective action on the appel- lant’s behalf within 120 days of the date of filing of the request for corrective action. 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5; see also 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). Although “the time limit for filing an IRA appeal cannot be waived for good cause,” Pacilli v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 404 F. App’x 466, 469 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Board may inquire as to whether equitable tolling may excuse an untimely filed IRA appeal. Id; see also Resp’t’s Br. 2 (“The [AJ] ordered Mr. Alexander to file evidence and argument showing that he filed on time or that the circumstances met the test of tolling.”). Mr. Alexander bears the burden of demonstrating his IRA was timely filed by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2)(ii) (2014). II. The Board Did Not Err in Dismissing Mr. Alexander’s IRA as Untimely Filed The Board found Mr. Alexander did not meet his bur- den to show his IRA was timely filed. This finding was supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Alexander failed to demonstrate he filed his IRA before the July 5, 2013, ALEXANDER v. MSPB 5 deadline. Though Mr. Alexander claims he filed his appeal on May 3, 2013, his filing on that date was under a different docket number and was not accompanied by a letter from the OSC. He provides no evidence showing the filing related to the IRA in the instant case. Without such information, the Board correctly found Mr. Alexander did not meet his burden to show he timely filed his appeal. Mr. Alexander filed his appeal several months after the statutory deadline and he provides no evidence that this IRA was timely. Furthermore, he does not address why his untimely filed IRA appeal should be subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling. Mr. Alexander has failed to show why the Board’s dismissal of his petition for review as untimely was arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.