Court Opinion

ID: 9918718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 16:01:12.56237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:48.395407
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1889   Document: 19     Page: 1    Filed: 01/16/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                CHARLES H. JOHNSON,
                     Petitioner

                            v.

           DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                       2023-1889
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in Nos. CH-3443-13-1466-B-2, CH-4324-13-0112-B-
 2.
                 ______________________

                Decided: January 16, 2024
                 ______________________

    CHARLES H. JOHNSON, Detroit, MI, pro se.

     DELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD
 THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1889    Document: 19     Page: 2    Filed: 01/16/2024

 2                                     JOHNSON v. COMMERCE

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Charles H. Johnson appeals from a Final Order of the
 Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his peti-
 tion for review and affirming the denial of his request for
 corrective action. For the reasons discussed below, we af-
 firm.
                        BACKGROUND
      Mr. Johnson is a preference eligible veteran who served
 over 16 years in the Air Force. Appx. 50. 1 Between 1998
 and 2010, Mr. Johnson held various temporary appoint-
 ments within the Department of Commerce. In 2012 and
 2013, Mr. Johnson filed appeals with the Board challeng-
 ing the termination of his employment with Commerce and
 alleging discrimination under the Uniformed Services Em-
 ployment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
 (USERRA) (codified as amended in 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–
 4335). Appx. 12, 23. The Board dismissed the portions of
 the appeals challenging Mr. Johnson’s termination for lack
 of jurisdiction because Mr. Johnson was not a covered em-
 ployee pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7511. Appx. 14–15, 24. The
 Board dismissed the USERRA portion of the appeals for
 lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Johnson did not allege his
 military service was a substantial or motivating factor in
 his termination. Appx. 15–16.
     On petition for review, the full Board joined the cases
 and affirmed the decisions regarding lack of jurisdiction
 over the termination challenges. Appx. 33. The Board re-
 manded for the administrative judge to provide Mr. John-
 son notice of his jurisdictional burdens and for a hearing

     1   “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed with Respond-
 ent’s Corrected Informal Brief.
Case: 23-1889    Document: 19     Page: 3    Filed: 01/16/2024

 JOHNSON v. COMMERCE                                       3

 on the merits of his USERRA claim. Appx. 38. On remand,
 the administrative judge notified Mr. Johnson of his juris-
 dictional burden under USERRA. Appx. 76–90.
      Mr. Johnson filed a motion arguing that Commerce’s
 failure to provide him notice of his rights to appeal under
 the Demonstration Projects created by the Veterans Bene-
 fits Improvement Act of 2004 and extended by the Veter-
 ans’ Benefit Act of 2010 (2004/2010 Demonstration
 Projects) established Board jurisdiction. Order on Appel-
 lant’s Motion for Jurisdiction and Closing the Record at 1,
 Johnson v. Dept. of Commerce, No. CH-4324-13-0112-B-2
 (M.S.P.B. July 15, 2016) (July 16 Order). The administra-
 tive judge denied the motion because the 2004/2010
 Demonstration Projects do not create additional USERRA
 jurisdiction. Id. at 2. The Board’s subsequent Initial Deci-
 sion denied Mr. Johnson’s claim for corrective action under
 USERRA. Appx. 54–55. In its Final Decision, the Board
 denied Mr. Johnson’s petition for review and affirmed the
 Board’s Initial Decision. Appx. 64. Mr. Johnson appeals.
 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                        DISCUSSION
     In reviewing a final decision of the Board, we must
 “hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings,
 or conclusions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an
 abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
 law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule,
 or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
 substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Whether the
 Board lacks jurisdiction is a question of law we review de
 novo. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed.
 Cir. 1995). The Board must provide notice to an appellant
 of his burden to demonstrate jurisdiction (Burgess notice).
 Burgess v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 758 F.2d 641, 643–44 (Fed.
 Cir. 1985).
   Mr. Johnson argues the Board erred in dismissing his
 USERRA claim related to the 2004/2010 Demonstration
Case: 23-1889    Document: 19      Page: 4   Filed: 01/16/2024

 4                                     JOHNSON v. COMMERCE

 Projects. Appellant Brief at 9–10. Mr. Johnson asserts the
 Board failed to provide Burgess notice of the jurisdictional
 requirements for USERRA claims brought under the
 2004/2010 Demonstration Projects. Id. at 6; see also Reply
 Brief at 8.
     The Board properly rejected Mr. Johnson’s jurisdic-
 tional argument in its July 2016 Order. July 16 Order at
 2. The 2004/2010 Demonstration Projects allowed a subset
 of USERRA complaints filed during a specific time period
 to be investigated by the Office of Special Counsel. Veter-
 ans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–
 454, § 204, 118 Stat. 3598, 3606 (2004); Veterans’ Benefits
 Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–275, § 105, 124 Stat. 2864,
 2868 (2010). The 2004/2010 Demonstration Projects did
 not provide any additional basis for Board jurisdiction. See
 Appx. 52. The Board was therefore not required to provide
 a separate Burgess notice for how to establish jurisdiction.
 Because the Board’s original Burgess notice for Mr. John-
 son’s USERRA claim was sufficient, we affirm. Appx. 77–
 82.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Johnson’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
 sons, we affirm.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.