Court Opinion

ID: 9373239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:38.813615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.320671
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GREGORY L. FINCH,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-3443-17-0246-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: November 10, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Gregory L. Finch, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, pro se.

           Judith A. Fishel, APO, AE, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such
     as this one only in the following circumstances:        the initial decision contains
     erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 and AFFIRM the initial
     decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant filed an appeal challenging the agency’s denying his request
     for a curtailment of his assignment as an Installation Food Advisor at the U.S.
     Army base located at Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo. 2 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1
     at 6, 8-12.   Specifically, on June 1, August 25, and October 17, 2016, the
     appellant submitted written formal requests for curtailment of his assignment in
     Kosovo. Id. at 8-10; IAF, Tab 11 at 4-9. It is undisputed that the agency denied
     his requests on January 3, 2017. IAF, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 12 at 5. The appellant filed
     this appeal on January 11, 2017, asserting that the agency’s denying his request
     violated two of the merit system principles. IAF, Tab 1 at 6. The appellant also
     checked a box on the appeal form indicating that he had received a negative
     suitability determination. Id. at 3.
¶3         After issuing an order to show cause to the parties regarding jurisdiction
     and considering their responses, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for

     2
       On petition for review, the appellant has submitted documentation showing that his
     request to curtail his assignment was granted effective March 1, 2017. P etition for
     Review File, Tab 4.
                                                                                      3

     lack of jurisdiction, finding that denying a request for curtailment of the
     appellant’s assignment at Camp Bondsteel is not an otherwise appealable action
     within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7512(1)-(5). IAF, Tab 14, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 4.    The administrative judge also found that the appellant’s
     request for a tour curtailment is analogous to denying a reassignment opportunity
     and that, absent a reduction in grade or pay, a reassignment is not an adverse
     action within the Board’s jurisdiction.      ID at 5.     In this connection, the
     administrative judge found that the appellant failed to establish that his pay was
     reduced. Id. She further concluded that, to the extent the appellant was alleging
     that his position classification was improper, such claim did not form the basis
     for jurisdiction over this matter. ID at 6. The administrative judge found that,
     while the appellant raised an allegation of a prohibited personnel practice, the
     Board does not have jurisdiction over an allegation of a prohibited personnel
     practice absent an otherwise appealable action within the Board’s jurisdiction. ID
     at 5-6. Similarly, the administrative judge found that, because the merit system
     principles are only intended to provide guidance to agencies, they do not
     constitute an independent basis for Board review.       ID at 6.   Concluding, the
     administrative judge found no negative suitability determination at issue in this
     appeal. ID at 7-8.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. The agency filed a response, and the appellant has filed a reply. PFR
     File, Tabs 3-4.

                       DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The appellant has failed to establish that the Board has jurisdiction over the
     agency’s action denying his request for a curtailment of his assigned duty.
¶5         On review, the appellant reasserts the bases for his request for curtailment,
     specifically, that he is being prevented from performing the work duties specified
     in his position description, including travel, which he was led to believe he would
     perform while in his Installation Food Advisor position at Camp Bondsteel. PFR
                                                                                      4

     File, Tab 1 at 3. He further contends that he has been denied training and that, as
     a result of these issues, the agency should have granted his request for
     curtailment. Id. The appellant also asserts that, although he may not have a valid
     legal claim, morally he believes that he has not been treated fairly. PFR File,
     Tab 4 at 3.
¶6         While the appellant continues to challenge the agency’s denying his request,
     he has failed to explain how the administrative judge erred or to provide any
     evidence in support of Board jurisdiction.    PFR File, Tabs 1, 4; see Tines v.
     Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992) (finding that a petition
     for review must contain sufficient specificity to enable the Board to ascertain
     whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge justifying a complete review of
     the record); Weaver v. Department of the Navy, 2 M.S.P.R. 129, 133 (1980)
     (finding that before the Board will undertake a complete review of the record, the
     petitioning party must explain why the challenged factual determination is
     incorrect and identify the specific evidence in the record which demonstrates the
     error), review denied, 669 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
¶7         Nevertheless, we have considered the appellant’s arguments on review
     concerning his assigned duties, training, travel, and additional pay and benefits.
     However, we discern no reason to disturb the well-reasoned findings of the
     administrative judge that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this matter.       See
     Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997) (finding no reason
     to disturb the administrative judge’s findings when she considered the evidence
     as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions) .
                                                                                         5

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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 time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choice s 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:

3
  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.
                                                                                    6

                             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 particu lar
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
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
                                                                                  7

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

      (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
                                                                                      8

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. 4   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 a t 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.uscour ts.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.

4
   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.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                        9

      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.