Court Opinion

ID: 9390671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 06:00:14.407559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.022684
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DELORES PORTER,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         CH-3330-17-0169-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,                            DATE: April 27, 2023
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Delores Porter, Mount Prospect, Illinois, pro se.

           Travis W. Gosselin, Esquire, Chicago, Illinois, 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
     denied corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of
     1998 (VEOA).      For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s
     petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND the case to the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     regional office for further adjudication of that claim in accordance with this
     Remand Order.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant, who is entitled to veterans’ preference, applied for a GS-09
     Employee Benefits Examiner position under vacancy announcement No. PW-17-
     CHI-EBSA-0032. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7 at 4, Tab 16 at 5. The agency
     did not select her for the position and she subsequently filed a complaint with the
     Department of Labor (DOL), Veterans’ Employment and Training Service
     (VETS), which investigated and found no violation of her veterans’ preference
     rights. IAF, Tab 15 at 5, Tab 16 at 5-6. The appellant filed this VEOA appeal
     5 days later, alleging that the agency denied her the right to compete for a vacant
     position for which the agency accepted application s from individuals outside its
     own workforce, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1). IAF, Tabs 1, 8.
¶3        The    appellant   subsequently     applied   for   vacancy    announcements
     Nos. PW-17-CHI-EBSA-0030 and PW-16-CHI-OASAM-0171, and she alleged
     that the agency violated her veterans’ preference rights when it cancelled those
     vacancy announcements. IAF, Tab 16 at 4, Tab 13. The administrative judge
     added those claims to this VEOA appeal and gave the appellant notice of the
     requirement that she exhaust her remedies with DOL, as well as the pertinent
     deadline for filing such a claim and the standards for the equitable tolling of that
     deadline.   IAF, Tab 16 at 4-5.     Without holding the requested hearing, the
     administrative judge denied the appellant’s VEOA appeal, finding that the Board
     lacks jurisdiction over two of her VEOA claims and that the third must be
     dismissed as a matter of law. IAF, Tab 18, Initial Decision (ID).
¶4        Concerning vacancy announcement No. PW-17-CHI-EBSA-0030, the
     administrative judge found that the appellant failed to allege that she exhausted
     her claim with DOL. ID at 3. As to vacancy announcement No. PW-16-CHI-
     OASAM-0171, the administrative judge found that the appellant failed to timely
                                                                                         3

     file her claim and did not identify any basis for the equitable tolling of the
     deadline. ID at 4-5. Therefore, she determined that the Board lacks jurisdiction
     over these two nonselections. ID at 3-5.
¶5        Regarding     vacancy    announcement     No.   PW-17-CHI-EBSA-0032,          the
     administrative judge found that the appellant established jurisdiction over her
     VEOA claim. ID at 5-6. Nevertheless, she concluded that corrective action must
     be denied as a matter of law. She reasoned that obtaining the educational degree
     was a requirement of participation in the Recent Graduates Program. ID at 7.
     Because the appellant had applied for the position under this program before she
     obtained her master’s degree and she did not show that she had notified the
     agency when she submitted her application that she had completed the degree
     requirements, she was not qualified for the position. ID at 6-8.
¶6        In her petition for review, the appellant only addresses her claim concerning
     vacancy announcement No. PW-17-CHI-EBSA-0032, arguing that her résumé and
     application both indicated that she obtained her master’s degree prior to applying
     for the position. 2 Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. She asserts that
     VETS failed to forward her supporting documentation as promised, and that that
     documentation would have established her claim. Id. at 4-5. She also argues that
     the transcript she submitted with her application fulfills the requirements of the
     Recent Graduates Program. Id. at 6-10; PFR File, Tab 4. The agency has filed a
     response in opposition to the appellant’s petition for review, and the appellant has
     filed a reply to the agency’s response. PFR File, Tabs 3 -4.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶7        To establish Board jurisdiction over a VEOA right-to-compete claim, the
     appellant must show that she exhausted her remedy with D OL and make
     nonfrivolous allegations that she is a veteran as described in 5 U.S.C.

     2
       The appellant does not challenge the administrative judge’s findings as to her other
     two nonselections, and we discern no basis to disturb them.
                                                                                      4

     § 3304(f)(1), the agency denied her the right to compete under merit promotion
     procedures for a vacant position for which the agency accepted applications from
     outside its own workforce, and the denial occurred on or after December 10,
     2004.     Wheeler v. Department of Defense, 113 M.S.P.R. 376, ¶ 7 (2010).
     Concerning      vacancy   announcement      No.    PW-17-CHI-EBSA-0032,         the
     administrative judge correctly found that the Board has jurisdiction over the
     appellant’s claim because the record reflects that she exhausted her remedy
     before DOL, she is preference eligible, and she made a nonfrivolous allegati on
     that the agency denied her the right to compete for the position                 in
     December 2016. Id.; ID at 5-6. To prevail on the merits in a right-to-compete
     claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B), the appellant must prove the jurisdictional
     elements by preponderant evidence. Graves v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     114 M.S.P.R. 209, ¶ 19 (2010). The Board has found that an agency’s failure to
     properly evaluate an applicant’s qualification may constitute a denial of the right
     to compete. See Phillips v. Department of the Navy, 110 M.S.P.R. 184, ¶¶ 8, 12,
     14 (2008), overruled on other grounds by Oram v. Department of the Navy ,
     2022 MSPB 30, ¶ 18 (finding that, contrary to the implicit holding in Phillips,
     current Federal employees are not entitled to corrective action under VE OA if
     they are denied the opportunity to compete under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)).
¶8           The administrative judge denied corrective action as to the appellant’s
     nonselection for vacancy announcement No. PW-17-CHI-EBSA-0032, finding
     that the appellant applied for the position before she obtained her degree and did
     not show that she notified the agency when she applied that she had completed
     the degree requirements. ID at 6-8. The appellant argues that both her résumé
     and application indicated that her graduation date was August 17, 2016, before
     the November 18, 2016 opening date on the job announcement. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 4; IAF, Tab 1 at 5. She further argues that the transcript she submitted with
     her application shows that she completed 36 credit hours, which is equivalent to
     2 years of graduate-level education and a master’s degree. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9;
                                                                                                     5

     IAF, Tab 1 at 5.          However, the transcript was issued before she obtained her
     degree, and therefore did not reflect that she had obtained it. Id.; IAF, Tab 7
     at 6-8.     The appellant asserts that the regulations for the Recent Graduates
     Program do not include the requirement that the agency applied in this matter,
     evidence of the award of a degree, for an individual to be considered for the
     position. PFR File, Tab 4 at 5; IAF, Tab 1 at 5. We agree.
¶9          To participate in the Recent Graduates Program, an individual must have a
     received a degree within 2 years. Dean v. Department of Labor, 808 F.3d 497,
     508 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 5 C.F.R. § 362.302(a). However, to apply for a position in
     the program, an individual is required only to have “completed all requirements
     of an academic course of study leading to a qualif ying . . . degree.” 5 C.F.R.
     § 362.302(b)(1). The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) considered, but
     declined to adopt, a requirement that candidates for positions under the program
     must be in receipt of a diploma, observing that there may be a delay between
     completing academic requirements and receiving the degree. Excepted Service,
     Career and Career-Conditional Employment; and Pathways Programs, 77 Fed.
     Reg.      28,194,     28,210    (May     11,   2012)   (codified     in    pertinent   part    at
     5 C.F.R. § 362.302). Instead, the qualifications standards that apply to positions
     in the Recent Graduates Program are OPM’s Qualification Standards.                         Dean,
     808 F.3d at 508; 5 C.F.R. § 362.303(d). As it concerns series 1801 positions,
     such as the Employee Benefits Investigator position at issue here, OPM has
     not adopted specific qualification standards.               IAF, Tab 13 at 4; OPM,
     Classification & Qualifications, General Schedule Qualification Standard s,
     General Inspection, Investigations, Enforcement, and Compliance Series, 1801,
     https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/general-
     schedule-qualification-standards/1800/general-inspection-investigation-
     enforcement-and-compliance-series-1801/ (last visited Apr. 26, 2023). Instead,
     it refers    to     its   general    qualification   standards     for    administrative      and
     management positions.          Id.     Those standards provide that, as relevant to a
                                                                                            6

      GS-09 position, the education qualification standard may be fulfilled either by a
      “master’s or equivalent degree,” or “2 full years of progressively higher level
      graduate education leading to such a degree.”            OPM, General Schedule
      Qualification      Standards,    Group     Coverage     Qualification     Standards,
      https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/general-
      schedule-qualification-standards/#url=Group-Standards (last visited Apr. 26,
      2023).
¶10         Consequently, a question exists regarding whether the agency vi olated the
      appellant’s veterans’ preference rights under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) in denying her
      the right to compete by requiring that she prove that she received her degree at
      the time she applied.     PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-10.     However, the record is not
      sufficiently developed to allow us to make this determination on review. Thus,
      we must remand the appeal to the regional office to develop the record and
      adjudicate this issue, including providing the appellant’s requested hearing, if
      necessary.      See Montgomery v. Department of Health and Human Services,
      123 M.S.P.R. 216, ¶ 13 (2016) (observing that the Board may decide the merits of
      a VEOA appeal without holding a hearing only when there is no genuine dispute
      of material fact and one party must prevail as a matter of law) ; IAF, Tab 1 at 2.
¶11         In finding that there was no dispute of material fact, the administrative
      judge observed that the appellant did not provide a copy of the vacancy
      announcement.      ID at 6-7.   The appellant also did not provide a copy of her
      application. On review, she expresses confusion regarding the processing of her
      appeal, and seems to believe that VETS was responsible for providing its
      investigative file to the Board. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. Although the appellant
      bears the burden of proof regarding her VEOA claim, the agency had the
      obligation   to    come   forward   with   relevant   evidence    pursuant   to      the
      acknowledgment order and the Board’s regulations within 20 days of the
      docketing of the appeal. Elder v. Department of the Air Force, 124 M.S.P.R. 12,
      ¶ 23 (2016); 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.22(b)(1), 1201.25(c); IAF, Tab 2 at 6, 9-10. In
                                                                                            7

      particular, in a case involving a nonselection, the evidence regarding the selection
      process often is exclusively within the agency’s possession.           See Bradley v.
      Department of Homeland Security, 123 M.S.P.R. 547, ¶ 16 (2016) (observing in
      an individual right of action appeal that when the personnel action at issue is a
      nonselection, the evidence concerning who was involved in the selection process,
      what they knew about the appellant’s protected disclosures, and who may have
      influenced their decision is exclusively within the agency’s possession) .
      Therefore, on remand, the administrative judge should order the agency to comply
      with the instruction to provide an agency file, and to include documents relevant
      to its selection for the position in question, such as the vacancy announcement,
      the appellant’s application, and documents related to her nonselection.

                                             ORDER
¶12         For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
      for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order. In the remand
      initial decision, the administrative judge may restate the previous jurisdictional
      findings as to vacancy announcement Nos. PW-16-CHI-OASAM-0171 and
      PW-17-CHI-EBSA-0030. 3

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

      3
       The remand initial decision will incorporate the findings from this Order and include a
      notice of appeal rights for all claims raised by the appellant.