Court Opinion

ID: 9382558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 07:00:10.912631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.205122
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     NICOLE E. CHILDRESS,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       CH-0752-14-0190-B-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: March 27, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Nicole E. Childress, Saint Louis, Missouri, pro se.

           Diana R. Stallard, Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the remand initial decision,
     which sustained her removal. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only
     in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
       Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
     completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                        2

     of material fact; 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. Except as expressly MODIFIED by
     this Final Order to find that the removal penalty is reasonable, we AFFIRM the
     remand initial decision.

                                      BACKGROUND
     The initial appeal
¶2         The agency removed the appellant from the GS–8 seasonal Contact
     Representative 3 position with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) based on the
     charge of receiving Government funds to which she was not entitled. Childress v.
     Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-14-0190-I-1, Final
     Order, ¶ 2 (Apr. 19, 2016). The agency specified that, during 6 separate weeks in
     2009, 2010, and 2011, the appellant received unemployment benefits to which she
     was not entitled because of her earnings from the IRS.          Id.   The appellant
     appealed the agency’s action and, during the course of proceedings below, had
     alleged a number of affirmative defenses. Id.

     3
       At various points throughout litigation, the appellant’s position was erroneously
     referred to as a “Contract Specialist.” See note 4, infra.
                                                                                           3

¶3         The administrative judge found that the agency proved the charged
     misconduct, that the appellant raised a single affirmative defense —that of
     harmful procedural error based on the agency’s alleged violation of the Internal
     Revenue Manual (IRM)—and that the appellant failed to prove her claim. Id.,
     ¶¶ 3, 6-7. The administrative judge also found that, contrary to the appellant’s
     assertions, the notice of proposed removal complied with the IRM, the agency
     established nexus between the proven misconduct and the efficiency of the
     service, and the removal penalty was within the bounds of reasonableness. Id.
¶4         In her petition for review, the appellant contended that the administrative
     judge erred in her findings regarding nexus and penalty. The Board found that
     the administrative judge should have provided notice to the appellant of the
     relevant burdens and elements of proof for all of her affirmative defenses raised
     below. Id., ¶ 8. The Board vacated the administrative judge’s findings regarding
     nexus and penalty but did not disturb her finding that the agency proved the
     charged misconduct. The Board remanded the case to allow development of the
     record on the appellant’s discrimination, harmful procedural error, “not in
     accordance with law,” and due process claims. Id.

     The remand appeal
¶5         On remand, the appellant alleged only that the agency’s action was not in
     accordance with law in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 7513. Childress v. Department of
     the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-14-0190-B-1, Appeal File (B-1 AF),
     Tab 27, Remand Initial Decision (RID) at 4.          She withdrew all of her other
     affirmative defenses. 4 Id.

     4
       Initially on remand, the appellant alleged as affirmativ e defenses only violations of
     5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10) and 5 U.S.C. § 7513 “(A)” [sic]. B-1 AF, Tab 11 at 4, Tab 13
     at 5. During the hearing, the appellant withdrew her affirmative defense that the agency
     violated section 2302(b)(10). B-1 AF, Tab 26, Hearing Transcript at 4 (testimony of
     the appellant).
                                                                                            4

¶6         The administrative judge found that, in cases of off -duty misconduct such
     as the appellant’s, the agency meets its burden under 5 U.S.C. § 7513 by
     establishing nexus between its grounds for an adverse personnel action and either
     the employee’s ability to accomplish his or her duties satisfactorily or some other
     legitimate Government interest promoting the efficiency of the service. RID at 6.
     She found that the agency established nexus here by showing through the
     testimony of the deciding official that the appellant’s conduct adversely affected
     management’s trust and confidence in her job performance and interfered with the
     agency’s mission of administering the nation’s tax system.           RID at 6-7.     She
     found that the appellant’s personal integrity in honestly and accurately reporting
     information to Governmental entities directly impacts the agency’s mission. RID
     at 7-8. In the remand initial decision, the administrative judge did not address
     whether the penalty was reasonable.
¶7         In her current petition for review, the appellant argues that the agency failed
     to show nexus between her misconduct and the efficiency of the service .
     Childress v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-14-0190-
     B-1, Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.          She contends that the deciding
     official provided no evidence that the agency had lost trust in her or that her
     misconduct adversely affected the agency’s mission.           Id. at 8-9.   Rather, the
     appellant asserts that the evidence is to the contrary. Id. at 6-9. For example, she
     states that after her proposed removal, she was select ed for a Contact
     Representative Classroom Instructor position, 5 showing that the agency had not
     lost trust and confidence in her. Id. at 7. She also argues that the fact that she

     5
       The appellant notes that the administrative judge improperly state d that the appellant
     was a Contact Representative with the Errors Resolution Department. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 7. The appellant states that she was a Contact Representative with the Kansas City
     Accounts Management Department stationed in St. Louis, Missouri. Id. To the extent
     that the administrative judge’s misstatement constituted error, it was harmless and
     did not affect the appellant’s substantive rights. Panter v. Department of the Air Force,
     22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984).
                                                                                               5

     continued to work her normal duties and received exceptional performance
     ratings after the agency learned of her misconduct shows that the agency had not
     lost trust in her and that her misconduct did not interfere with the agency’s
     mission. 6 Id. at 7-9. She asserts that she had no face-to-face interaction with the
     taxpaying public and was not a public figure designated to speak on behalf of the
     agency. Id. at 7.
¶8         The appellant also reiterates her assertion that she was subjected to a
     disparate penalty.     PFR File, Tab 1 at 10-11.        She contends that one of the
     employees to whom she compared herself received a 30-day suspension for
     essentially the same misconduct as hers.            Additionally, she asserts that the
     penalty was not within the bounds of reasonableness. Id., at 11. She asserts that
     the deciding official admitted to not considering relevant Douglas factors. 7 Id.
     She contends that she is a candidate for rehabilitation because she took
     responsibility for her misconduct, showed that s he had repaid the wrongly
     received unemployment payments, and had an excellent work record. Id.

     6
       The appellant cites Hovanec v. Department of the Interior, 67 M.S.P.R. 340 (1995) in
     support of her assertion that her supervisors had not lost trust in her and that her
     misconduct did not affect the agency’s mission. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. She argues that
     an agency cannot claim loss of trust when it promotes an employee while aware of her
     off-duty misconduct. Id. Hovanec is distinguishable from the appellant’s case,
     however. Importantly, the appellant was not promoted, but was given a collateral duty.
     IAF, Tab 27, Exhibit C. Further, the appellant in Hovanec did not receive personal gain
     from his misconduct and the Board noted that there appeared to be some question
     regarding his mental state at the time of his misconduct. Hovanec, 67 M.S.P.R. at 347.
     Here, the appellant’s misconduct did result in personal gain and there is no issue of her
     mental state at the time of her misconduct.
     7
       In Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981) the Board
     articulated a nonexhaustive list of 12 factors that are relevant in assessing the penalty to
     be imposed for an act of misconduct.
                                                                                       6

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      The agency met its burden to establish nexus.
¶9         Removals appealable to the Board under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512, 7513(d), and
      7701, may be taken only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of th e
      service. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a); see Scheffler v. Department of the Army,
      117 M.S.P.R. 499, ¶ 9 (2012), aff’d, 522 F. App’x 913 (Fed. Cir. 2013).        An
      action promotes the efficiency of the service only if there is a nexus between the
      proven misconduct and the efficiency of the service. Id. The nexus requirement
      means there must be a clear and direct relationship between the articulated
      grounds for an adverse action and either the employee’s ability to accomplish his
      or her duties satisfactorily or some other legitimate Government interest.     Id.
      (citing Merritt v. Department of Justice, 6 M.S.P.R. 585, 596 (1981), modified by
      Kruger v. Department of Justice, 32 M.S.P.R. 71, 75 n.2 (1987)). An agency may
      show a nexus between off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of the service by
      three means:   (1) a rebuttable presumption in certain egregious circumstances;
      (2) preponderant evidence that the misconduct adversely affects the appellant’s or
      co-workers’ job performance or the agency’s trust and confidence in the
      appellant’s job performance; or (3) preponderant evidence that the misconduct
      interfered with or adversely affected the agency’s mission.             Scheffler,
      117 M.S.P.R. 499, ¶ 10; Kruger, 32 M.S.P.R. at 74.
¶10        Thus, a removal action taken against an employee such as the appellant will
      be sustained only if the agency can prove by preponderant evidence that it
      promotes the efficiency of the service.    An action that does not promote the
      efficiency of the service is not in accordance with law and must be reversed. See
      generally Stephen v. Department of the Air Force, 47 M.S.P.R. 672, 684 (1991).
¶11        As the administrative judge found, the deciding official testified that
      management had lost trust in the appellant’s integrity to effectively ful fill the
      agency’s mission. RID at 4, 7. Thus, the agency established that the appellant’s
      conduct affected management’s trust and confidence in her job performance.
                                                                                          7

      Additionally, the agency established that the appellant’s misconduct adversely
      affected the agency’s mission.     Given the agency’s mission of assuring that
      taxpayers comply with their obligations, it is relevant that employees who advise
      the public about legal requirements make sound decisions that are based on
      policies, directives, and law. Royster v. Department of Justice, 58 M.S.P.R. 495,
      500 (1993) (stating that an agency is not required to demonstrate a specific
      impact on the appellant’s job performance or the efficiency of the service when
      the employee’s off-duty misconduct is antithetical to the agency’s mission);
      Kruger, 32 M.S.P.R. at 75–76 (same). We find that, under the circumstances of
      this case, the appellant’s poor decisions regarding the policies, directives, and law
      around collecting unemployment benefits made the agency lose trust in her
      integrity and abilities and adversely affected the agency’s mission.
¶12         The appellant proffered uncontested evidence of her successful job
      performance, which is a factor in her favor. Further, there is no showing that the
      appellant’s misconduct was publicized or a matter of notoriety. Notwithstanding
      the relevancy of these facts, though, we find that they do not rebut the inference
      that arises “from the relationship between the misconduct and the ag ency’s
      mission.”   Kruger, 32 M.S.P.R. at 75.      The appellant’s good performance is
      outweighed by the agency’s need for a trustworthy employee. Therefore, we find
      that there is a nexus between the sustained misconduct and the efficiency of the
      service warranting disciplinary action. Because the appellant did not show that
      the agency’s action violated 5 U.S.C. § 7513, she failed to show that it was not in
      accordance with law.

      The agency showed that the removal penalty was within the bounds of
      reasonableness for the sustained misconduct.
¶13         As noted, the administrative judge did not address the reasonableness of the
      penalty on remand.     Because the Board vacated the initial decision’s findings
      regarding the penalty when it remanded the appeal, we here make specific
      findings on the reasonableness of the penalty.
                                                                                         8

¶14           When the agency’s charge is sustained, the Board reviews the penalty only
      to determine whether the agency considered all the relevant factors and exercised
      management discretion within the tolerable limits of reasonableness. See Ellis v.
      Department of Defense, 114 M.S.P.R. 407, ¶ 11 (2010). The Board must give due
      deference to the agency’s primary discretion in maintaining employee disc ipline
      and efficiency. Id. The Board will mitigate a penalty only when the Board finds
      that the agency did not weigh the relevant factors or that the penalty clearly
      exceeds the bounds of reasonableness. Id.
¶15           In analyzing a penalty, the nature and seriousness of the appellant’s offense
      is the most significant factor. Edwards v. U.S. Postal Service, 116 M.S.P.R. 173,
      ¶ 14 (2010); Martin v. Department of Transportation, 103 M.S.P.R. 153, ¶ 13
      (2006), aff’d, 224 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Table). In the instant case, the
      charge of claiming and receiving Government benefits to which an employee
      clearly is not entitled is a serious offense; an agency is entitled to expect honesty
      and truthfulness from its employees in every aspect of their employment. Shane
      v. Department of the Army, 64 M.S.P.R. 269, 272 (1994). Such improper actions
      by an employee reflect adversely on the employee’s reliability, veracity,
      trustworthiness, and ethical conduct.         Dogar v. Department of Defense,
      95 M.S.P.R. 52, ¶ 19 (2003) (citing Seas v. U.S. Postal Service, 78 M.S.P.R. 569,
      578 (1998)), aff’d, 128 F. App’x 156 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Table); Shane,
      64 M.S.P.R. at 272.
¶16           At the hearing, the deciding official gave a detailed, well -reasoned
      explanation of her decision to impose the penalty of removal, which showed that
      she carefully considered all of the relevant Douglas factors. I-1 HT (testimony of
      the deciding official).    She testified that she found the appellant’s actions of
      filing for unemployment compensation to be repeated, intentional, and for private
      gain.    Id. at 22, 35, 37-40, 71-72 (testimony of the deciding official).       She
      indicated that the appellant was on specific notice from the State of Missouri that
      she could claim unemployment compensation benefits only f or weeks spent in a
                                                                                          9

      nonpay status. Id. at 35 (testimony of the deciding official). She also clarified
      that she did not consider the appellant’s actions to constitute a crime or theft,
      despite the state’s recommendation for Federal prosecution, but she st ill deemed
      the misconduct serious. Id. at 85-86, 88 (testimony of the deciding official).
¶17         The deciding official also testified that the appellant interacted with the
      public on a daily basis on behalf of the agency and therefore must be trustworthy
      given the nature of her work. Her duties involved interpreting a complex subject
      matter and an ability to convey those interpretations to the taxpayer. Her actions
      of improperly claiming Government benefits resulted in a loss of management’s
      trust in her. Id. at 30-31, 48, 56-57 (testimony of the deciding official). The fact
      that the appellant’s interactions with the public were not in-person is immaterial.
      The appellant regularly interacted with taxpayers and thus was metaphorically the
      face of the agency.
¶18         In challenging the agency’s penalty determination, the appellant raised a
      claim of disparate penalties. The Federal Circuit has held that when an employee
      raises an allegation that she received more severe discipline than another
      employee, the proper inquiry is whether the agency knowingly treated employees
      differently “in a way not justified by the facts, and intentionally for reasons other
      than the efficiency of the service.”     Facer v. Department of the Air Force,
      836 F.2d 535, 539 (Fed. Cir. 1988). As part of the oral reply to the proposed
      removal, the appellant’s union representative offered “comparator” cases
      involving employees who engaged in misconduct similar to that with which the
      appellant was charged.     IAF, Tab 5, Subtab 4d, at 18-20.       In her prehearing
      submission, the appellant offered nearly 200 pages of documents regarding
      comparator employees.     IAF, Tab 27.     However, at the hearing, the appellant
      questioned the deciding official about only one comparator employee.             IAF,
      Tab 32, Hearing Transcript (I-1 HT) at 78-85 (testimony of the deciding official).
      This comparator’s misconduct involved improper receipt of Government funds,
      specifically food stamps and cash from the Kansas City Department for Children
                                                                                      10

      and Family. Id. The comparator also incorrectly reported her income from the
      IRS and another employer. As a penalty, the comparator employee received a
      30-day suspension.      This comparator employee’s disciplinary action, however,
      was not decided by the same deciding official in the appellant’s case, and so the
      totality of the facts in that case was not readily known by her. Consequently, we
      find that the difference in treatment was not done knowingly and intentionally.
      Also, the deciding official did opine that if the comparator employee’s case had
      been proposed to her for decision, she would have sustained the removal as
      warranted. Id. at 84.
¶19        Further countering the appellant’s assertion of disparate treatment, the
      agency offered uncontroverted evidence that the Kansas City IRS campus, over
      which the deciding official and another manager presided as directors, proposed a
      total of 30 removals from January 2013 through September 2014 for the offense
      of receiving Government benefits to which the employees were not entitled. IAF,
      Tab 26 at 59-60. All of those cases eventually resulted in either a removal or a
      resignation, save for the one case the appellant highlighted at the hearing.
      However, that case did not involve unemployment compensation, or the same
      deciding official, while the instant case and the 29 other cases identified by the
      agency did involve charges of obtaining unemployment compensation when not
      entitled and did result in either removals or resignations in lieu of removals.
      Thus, we find that the administrative judge correctly determined that the
      appellant did not establish that she was subjected to a disparate penalty.
¶20        The deciding official considered as mitigating factors the appellant’s
      successful performance appraisals and lack of prior discipline.       I-1 HT at 18
      (testimony of the deciding official). However, she found the appellant not to be a
      good candidate for rehabilitation with a lesser penalty, and in fact felt the
      appellant’s work history and performance could be viewed in both an aggravating
      and mitigating light.     Id. (testimony of the deciding official).   The deciding
      official believed that the remorse the appellant expressed for her actions was
                                                                                             11

      minimal and that she did not provide an explanation for her misconduct. Id. at 38
      (testimony of the deciding official). The deciding official testified that, while the
      agency’s penalty guide provided for a penalty ranging from a 14 -day suspension
      to a removal for a first offense of the charged misconduct, removal was
      appropriate here, given the intentional and repetitive nature of the appellant’s
      actions, as well the need for the agency to remain consistent in cases involving
      this type of misconduct when warranted. Id. at 39-41 (testimony of the deciding
      official).
¶21         The Board has long recognized that dishonest activity by a Federal
      employee      raises   serious   doubts    regarding    the    employee’s     reliability,
      trustworthiness, and continued fitness for employment. Scheffler, 117 M.S.P.R.
      499, ¶ 16; Whelan v. U.S. Postal Service, 103 M.S.P.R. 474, ¶ 13 (2006), aff’d,
      231 F. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Table); Kirkpatrick v. U.S. Postal Service,
      74 M.S.P.R. 583, 591 (1997). Therefore, we find that the agency established that
      the penalty of removal is within the bounds of reasonableness for the sustained
      misconduct.

                                NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 8
             The remand initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order,
      constitutes the Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. 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 th e
      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

      8
        Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board has 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.
                                                                                      12

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 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
                                                                                    13

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
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
                                                                                     14

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

      (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 re view either with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 9   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

9
   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.
                                                                                 15

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.
      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.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                       16

      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.