Court Opinion

ID: 9373703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:49.444407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.351728
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KEVIN R. BRYARS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DA-315I-18-0065-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                    DATE: May 16, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Kevin R. Bryars, Moore, Oklahoma, pro se.

           Telin W. Ozier, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his appeal 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; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous a pplication of the law to

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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 affec ted 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).
¶2         On review, the appellant first asserts that the agency’s decision to demote
     him 4 months into his supervisory probationary period was procedurally deficient
     and that the agency failed to train him properly during the probationary period.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. 2 For the reasons set forth in the initial
     decision, we agree with the administrative judge that the Board lacks jurisdiction
     over this appeal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-5.
     Absent an otherwise appealable action, the Board cannot adjudicate claims of
     harmful procedural error or prohibited personnel practices.         See Penna v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 118 M.S.P.R. 355, ¶ 13 (2012).
¶3         The appellant also asserts that the agency demoted him during his
     supervisory probationary period in retaliation for whistleblowing.            PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 4.   Although the appellant’s filings were generally vague and lacked

     2
       The appellant attaches a number of documents to his petition for review. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 5-11. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence
     submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was
     unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino v.
     U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). The appellant has not described why
     he could not provide these documents to the administrative judge, and we find that they
     are immaterial to the dispositive issue of the Board’s jurisdiction over his appeal. Some
     of the documents are already part of the record below and do not constitute new
     evidence. See Meier v. Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980).
                                                                                         3

     detailed arguments about retaliation, IAF, Tabs 1, 6, he clearly and explicitly
     asserted whistleblower retaliation in his supplemental filing           before the
     administrative judge issued the initial decision, IAF, Tab 9 at 3.                The
     administrative judge never apprised the appellant of the burden of proof to
     establish jurisdiction in an individual right of action (IRA) appeal , including the
     requirement to exhaust administrative remedies with the Office of Special
     Counsel (OSC), prior to issuing the initial decision nor in the initial decision
     itself. IAF, Tabs 2-3; ID at 2-5; see Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
     758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that an appellant must receive
     explicit information on what is required to establish Board jurisdiction before
     dismissing a claim for lack of jurisdiction); see also Washington v. Department of
     the Navy, 75 M.S.P.R. 150, 153-54 (1997) (finding that, although the
     jurisdictional notice was adequate at the time it was issued, the admi nistrative
     judge should have afforded the appellant further jurisdictional notice when the
     parties filed evidence and argument implicating further jurisdictional issues).
¶4        Under the circumstances of this case, however, we find that any lack of
     notice was harmless and did not affect the appellant’s substantive rights.        The
     undisputed record evidence shows, and the appellant certified under penalty of
     perjury, that he did not file any complaint with OSC, which is a prerequisite to
     filing an IRA appeal with the Board. IAF, Tab 1, Tab 9 at 4; PFR File, Tab 1; see
     Flores v. Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 427, ¶¶ 8-9 (2005). Thus, the
     Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal as an IRA appeal .            See Flores,
     98 M.S.P.R. 427, ¶¶ 8-9; see also Hudson v. Office of Personnel Management,
     114 M.S.P.R. 669, ¶ 11 (2010) (finding that the lack of jurisdictional notice did
     not affect the appellant’s substantive rights because the Board clearly lacked
     jurisdiction over the appeal). Moreover, a different administrative judge in the
     appellant’s second demotion appeal specifically apprised him of IRA appeal
     jurisdictional requirements before dismissing that appeal for adjudicatory
     efficiency and noted that the appellant certified under penalty of perjury that he
                                                                                       4

had not filed any complaint with OSC. Bryars v. Department of the Air Force,
MSPB Docket No. DA-315I-18-0179-I-1, Initial Decision at 3 n.1 (Feb. 22,
2018).     Thus, the record in that appeal further supports our finding that the
appellant has not exhausted his administrative remedies with OSC and a remand
in this appeal would be futile. See Hudson, 114 M.S.P.R. 669, ¶ 11. Nothing
prevents the appellant from timely filing an IRA appeal with the Board after
exhausting his administrative remedies with OSC.

                         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 below 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.
         Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices o f 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.

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 notic e, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                          5

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
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that 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
                                                                                  6

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:
                         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
                                                                                      7

      (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).
      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.

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial 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 judicial 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.
                                                                              8

      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.
      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.