Court Opinion

ID: 9375910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 15:01:14.615221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.792074
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     OMAR ALSOOFI,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  CH-0752-17-0193-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: February 28, 2023
                 Agency.

                THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Omar Alsoofi, Dearborn, Michigan, pro se.

           Joshua A. Dombrow, Esquire, and Pamela D. Langston-Cox, Esquire,
             Chicago, Illinois, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his reduction in grade and pay claims for lack of jurisdiction.
     Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
     circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;

     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                         2

     the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation
     or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative
     judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision
     were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion,
     and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material
     evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due
     diligence, was not available when the record closed.        Title 5 of the Code of
     Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).             After fully
     considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
     established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
     Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,
     which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The essential undisputed facts, as set forth by the administrative judge in
     the initial decision, are as follows:   The appellant was employed as a GS-11,
     Step 4 Revenue Officer in Detroit, Michigan. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 26,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 2. Effective July 1, 2012, he accepted a position as a
     GL-09, Step 10 Criminal Investigator. 2 Id. He reported for training in Georgia
     for his new Criminal Investigator position.      Id.   On November 29, 2012, the
     agency removed the appellant from training after he failed three examinati ons in
     violation of its “three strikes” rule. Id. Following the appellant’s removal from
     training, the agency afforded him the option to resign, face a proposed removal,
     or return to his former position as a Revenue Officer. Id. From November 29,
     2012, to March 10, 2013, the appellant retained his Criminal Investigator title,
     but reported to an office in Pontiac, Michigan, for an interim placement away
     from the training facility in Georgia. Id. The appellant declined to resign, and

     2
       The initial decision mistakenly identifies the appellant’s Criminal Investigator
     position as a GS-09 instead of a GL-09. Compare ID at 2, with IAF, Tab 10 at 36-42.
                                                                                       3

     the agency transferred him back to his former Revenue Officer position, effective
     March 10, 2013, in lieu of removing him. Id.
¶3         The appellant filed a Board appeal alleging that his involuntary transfer
     from the Criminal Investigator position to his former Revenue Officer position
     was a reduction in grade and pay.      IAF, Tabs 1, 11.     He contended that he
     suffered a reduction in pay because his rate of basic pay was reduced and he lost
     Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP). Id. He also argued that his locality
     pay was incorrectly calculated during his interim placement from November 29,
     2012, to March 10, 2013, and had the agency properly afforded him locality pay
     for the Detroit area, his transfer back to his Revenue Officer position would have
     resulted in a decrease in pay. IAF, Tab 21 at 3, Tab 23 at 3. Finally, he argued
     that the agency’s decision to remove him from training was discriminatory. IAF,
     Tab 1, Tab 10 at 45.
¶4         Without holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the administrative judge
     issued an initial decision, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.     ID
     at 5-8.   The administrative judge found that the appellant did not suffer a
     reduction in grade because his Standard Form 50 (SF-50) indicated that his
     acceptance of the Criminal Investigator position was a “change to lower grade,
     level, or band” and, thus, his return to his Revenue Officer position from the
     Criminal Investigator position amounted to a grade increase.       ID at 5.    The
     administrative judge further found that the appellant did not suffer a reduction in
     pay when he was involuntarily transferred back to his Revenue Officer position
     because his adjusted basic pay increased from $63,259 to $68,640. ID at 5-6.
     She also found that LEAP or availability pay is not part of basic pay and the loss
     of such pay is not appealable to the Board. ID at 5. Finally, she rejected the
     appellant’s argument that he would have suffered a reduction in pay from $68,738
     to $68,640 had the agency properly afforded him locality pay for the Detroit area
     after he was removed from his Criminal Investigator training . ID at 6-7. She also
                                                                                      4

     found that, absent an otherwise appealable action, the Board lacks juris diction to
     consider the appellant’s discrimination claim. ID at 7 -8.
¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. The agency has opposed the appellant’s petition, and the appellant
     has filed a reply. PFR File, Tabs 3-4.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6         On review, the appellant reiterates his argument below that the agency
     incorrectly assigned his locality pay and, but for that mistake, his involuntary
     transfer from his Criminal Investigator position to his Reven ue Officer position
     would have amounted to a reduction in pay. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5. Such an
     argument, however, is unavailing. The right to appeal reductions in pay to the
     Board has been narrowly construed and requires the appellant to show a
     demonstrable loss, such as an actual reduction in pay, to establish jurisdiction.
     See Broderick v. Department of the Treasury, 52 M.S.P.R. 254, 258 (1992); see
     also Chaney v. Veterans Administration, 906 F.2d 697, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
     (finding that an appealable reduction in pay occurs only when there is an
     ascertainable lowering of the employee’s pay at the time of the action). Here, it
     is undisputed that the appellant’s adjusted basic pay increased from $63,259 to
     $68,640 as a result of his involuntary transfer back to his Revenue Officer
     position.   We find, therefore, that the appellant has not made a nonfrivolous
     allegation that he suffered a reduction in pay and, thus, the administrative judge
     properly dismissed the appeal without a hearing.      Cf. Caven v. Merit Systems
     Protection Board, 392 F.3d 1378, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding that the
     denial of a promotion that would have resulted in an increase in pay is not an
     appealable reduction in pay).
¶7         The appellant also argues for the first time on review that he suffered a
     reduction in pay when (1) the agency reduced his pay by $5 a day in supplemental
     pay after he was removed from Criminal Investigator training in Georgia; and
                                                                                           5

     (2) his pay for pay period 4 of 2013 was reduced from $68,640 to $63,259. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 4. We decline to consider such arguments in the first instance
     because they do not appear to be based on new information to the ex tent they
     relate to events that occurred in 2012 and 2013, and the appellant has not
     explained why he could not have raised them below. See Banks v. Department of
     the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (stating that the Board will not
     consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a
     showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available
     despite the party’s due diligence); Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R.
     211, 214 (1980) (stating that the Board will not consider evidence submit ted for
     the first time with a petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable
     before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence).
¶8         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
           You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
     statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
     review and the appropriate forum with which to file.              5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
     Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
     Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
     appropriate for your situation and the rights described b elow do not represent a
     statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
     jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
     immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
     filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
     limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

     3
       Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
     the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
     Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                          6

      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.                 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit    your   petition    to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review     of   cases      involving   a   claim      of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
                                                                                  7

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and th at such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.     5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017).          If you have a
representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before
you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days
after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling
condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and
to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                                                                                      8

                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant     to   the   Whistleblower       Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),
(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judici al review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for jud icial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  9

      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any atto rney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

FOR THE BOARD:                               /s/ for
                                     Jennifer Everling
                                     Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.