Court Opinion

ID: 9373537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:43.123451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.010093
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KEVIN WHEELER BELL,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-3443-16-0170-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: July 28, 2022
                   Agency.

          THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           David A. Branch, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

           Stephen W. Furgeson, Landover, Maryland, 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 deci sion, which
     dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such
     as this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material
     fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statut e or

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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        On November 26, 2015, the appellant filed a Board appeal which did not
     specify the action he was appealing but rather comprised over 400 pages of
     attachments, which appeared to reference actions he had previously appealed to
     the Board. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. The administrative judge issued a
     show cause order directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not
     be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or barred by res judicata. IAF, Tab 3 at 2.
     The administrative judge noted that the appellant had previously filed appeals of
     his placement on administrative leave on March 26, 2014, and his reduction in
     grade pursuant to a reduction in force, effective April 19, 2014. Id. at 1. She
     informed the appellant of the criteria under which an appeal is barred by res
     judicata and ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument to show why his
     appeal should not be dismissed. Id. at 2. She further ordered the appellant to
     identify the agency action he was appealing. Id.
¶3        In response, the appellant appeared to indicate that he was not attempting to
     appeal the prior actions and referenced a number of alleged additional actions
     taken by the agency, including a hostile work environment claim related to an
                                                                                          3

     incident on February 27, 2014, an October 6, 2014 letter restricting him from
     returning to work pending physical and psychiatric evalua tions, the cancellation
     of his life insurance and health benefits on October 31, 2015, and his request for
     reasonable accommodation in the form of a reassignment away from his
     supervisor. IAF, Tab 7 at 4-6.
¶4        Without holding a hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial
     decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.       IAF, Tab 8, Initial
     Decision (ID). The administrative judge found that the appellant failed to provide
     a readily comprehensible list or explanation of the agency action(s) at issue. ID
     at 4. She further found that the actions that he did identify, such as the agency
     terminating his health or life insurance benefits or denying a request for
     reasonable accommodation, are not appealable to the Board. Id.
¶5        The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. The agency has not responded to the appellant’s petition.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6        The appellant’s petition for review does not contain any specific challenges
     to the initial decision in this appeal, and the Board will normally embark upon a
     complete review of the record only if the appellant identifies a specific error that
     the administrative judge made in evaluating the evidence or applying the law.
     See Baney v. Department of Justice, 109 M.S.P.R. 242, ¶ 7 (2008); Tines v.
     Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115.
     Here, the appellant has shown no basis upon which to disturb the initial decision.
¶7        In his petition, the appellant contends that the administrative judge erred in
     finding that he had not been honorably discharged and was not preference eligible
     because she incorrectly interpreted the Marine Corps separation guidelines. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 4. To support his contention, he submits various documents from
     the Department of Veterans Affairs pertaining to his separation from military
     service as well as an application for correcting his military record. Id. at 5-9.
                                                                                      4

Such arguments appear to relate to another Board appeal , which the Board
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in a February 24, 2016 nonprecedential final
order, and are not properly before the Board in the instant appeal. See Bell v.
U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-14-0613-I-1, Final Order at 4-5
(Feb. 24, 2016). To the extent that the appellant is challenging this decision, he
was apprised of his right to request that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit review the Board’s final decision. Id. at 5-6.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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 t ime
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.

2
  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.
                                                                                         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. 3   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.

3
   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 judi cial 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 websi te 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.