Court Opinion

ID: 9677806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:00:28.244255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:06.824548
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     STACEY K. ROGERS,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        AT-0752-22-0332-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: August 23, 2023
       SECURITY,
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Stacey K. Rogers, Hinesville, Georgia, pro se.

           Dana L. Vockley, Esquire, and Erika Lucas, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for
             the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed her removal from Federal service. For the reasons discussed below, we
     GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     REMAND the case to the Atlanta Regional Office for further adjudication in
     accordance with this Remand Order.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2         Electronic service of the Board’s issuances is only appropriate for properly
     registered e-filers who affirmatively consent to electronic service. See 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.14(e)(1)-(2) (noting that registration as an e-filer constitutes consent to
     accept electronic service and that the exclusive means for registering as an e -filer
     is to do so through e-Appeal Online), (j)(1) (identifying that paper copies of
     Board issuances are not ordinarily served on registered e -filers), (j)(3) (noting
     that registered e-filers are responsible for monitoring case activity in the
     e-Appeal Online Repository to ensure that they have received all case-related
     documents).      The record for this appeal does not contain the appellant’s
     affirmative consent to accept electronic service; however, several of the
     administrative judge’s orders      were exclusively served on         the appellant
     electronically, including the orders scheduling the prehearing conference and
     setting forth the deadline for prehearing submissions. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tabs 5, 7, 10.
¶3         As a result of the appellant’s failure to attend the prehearing conf erence,
     she was denied the opportunity to file prehearing submissions and to have
     witnesses appear at the hearing.     IAF, Tabs 12, 15.     The appellant was thus
     effectively denied the opportunity to properly prosecute her appeal.             See
     McGuire v. U.S. Postal Service, 5 M.S.P.R. 54, 56 (1981) (finding that an
     administrative judge’s failure to serve an appellant with copies of requests for
     documentation denied the appellant the opportunity to timely prosecute his
     appeal). Under the specific circumstances in this case, we find it appropriate to
     vacate the initial decision and remand the appeal for a new hearing. On remand,
     the administrative judge should update and verify the appellant’s preferred
     method of service and set forth a new hearing schedule.
                                                                                      3

                                         ORDER
¶4        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Atlanta
     Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

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