Court Opinion

ID: 9963127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 17:01:10.193735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.253605
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

BENJAMIN A. NEVAREZ,                            DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        DE-1221-13-0166-C-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 23, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      R. Chris Pittard , Esquire, San Antonio, Texas, for the appellant.

      Casey W. Hinson , Esquire, Falls Church, Virginia, for the agency.

      Alvin Donald Pieper , White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, for the
        agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial
decision, which denied his petition for enforcement of the Board’s order granting
corrective action in the underlying individual right of action (IRA) appeal.
Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings 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 and AFFIRM the compliance initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                 BACKGROUND
      In this IRA appeal, the administrative judge issued a remand initial
decision granting corrective action in part and ordering the agency to change the
appellant’s performance ratings from Fair to Successful for the rating period
March 1, 2012, through February 28, 2013. Nevarez v. Department of the Army,
MSPB Docket No. DE-1221-13-0166-B-1, Remand Initial Decision (RID)
(Aug. 24, 2016). The remand initial decision became the Board’s final decision
in the appellant’s IRA appeal on September 26, 2016, when neither party filed a
petition for review.   Id. at 27; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 (providing that initial
decisions generally become final 35 days after issuance absent a petition for
review). The appellant filed a January 30, 2018 petition for enforcement, arguing
that the agency was not in compliance with the remand initial decision.
Compliance Appeal File (CAF), Tab 1. The appellant also contended that the
agency failed to notify him in writing of the actions it took to comply with the
remand initial decision. Id. at 1. Additionally, he raised issues concerning the
                                                                                      3

agency’s subsequent decision to remove him, effective December 9, 2017. 2 Id.
at 1-2.
      The agency filed a motion to dismiss the appellant’s petition for
enforcement as untimely filed and submitted evidence of its compliance with the
remand initial decision.      CAF, Tab 5.     The administrative judge denied the
petition for enforcement, finding that the agency’s response established that it
had made the ordered change to the appellant’s performance ratings. CAF, Tab 7,
Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 4. Concerning the appellant’s claim that the
agency failed to timely notify him that it had done so, as ordered in the remand
initial decision, the administrative judge found that, even if the agency had failed
to provide the required notice in a timely fashion, there was no meaningful relief
available to the appellant.     Id.   As to any further relief that the appellant
requested in his petition for enforcement, the administrative judge determined
that no further corrective action was required as a consequence of the remand
initial decision. Id. at 5.
      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial
decision. Compliance Petition for Review (CPFR) File, Tab 1. 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. CPFR File, Tabs 4, 6.

                 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The agency is in compliance with the remand initial decision .
      In his petition for review of the compliance initial decision, the appellant
claims that the agency “never changed” his performance ratings. 3 CPFR File,
2
  The appellant filed an appeal of his removal. Nevarez v. Department of the Army,
MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-18-0109-I-1. The administrative judge issued an initial
decision affirming the removal, and the appellant’s petition for review of the initial
decision is pending and will be resolved in a separate decision.
3
  Although the agency moved to dismiss the petition for enforcement as untimely filed,
CAF, Tab 5 at 7-8, the administrative judge did not rule on the agency’s motion, instead
finding the agency in compliance with the remand initial decision, RID at 4. The
agency reraises the timeliness issue on review, but we discern no basis to grant review
                                                                                     4

Tab 1 at 4. It is the agency’s burden to prove its compliance with a Board order.
Vaughan v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 319, ¶ 5 (2011).                An
agency’s assertions of compliance must include a clear explanation of its
compliance actions supported by understandable documentary evidence. Id. The
appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence of compliance by making specific,
nonconclusory, and supported assertions of continued noncompliance. Id.
      We agree with the administrative judge that the agency has established
compliance by providing a copy of the appellant’s performance rating for the
period in question and a sworn affidavit attesting that it changed his rating as
ordered. RID at 3; CAF, Tab 5 at 11, 14. The updated performance appraisal
does not contain any reference to the appellant’s previous “fair” rating, and
reflects that he demonstrated “success” on each of his responsibilities and was
“successful” overall. CAF, Tab 5 at 11; see Vaughan, 116 M.S.P.R. 319, ¶¶ 3,
6-7 (agreeing with an administrative judge that an agency’s documentation that it
issued an appellant a new performance appraisal without cross-outs and notations,
as ordered, proved that it had corrected the appraisal). We also agree with the
administrative judge that the record shows that there was no back pay that
accrued as a result of the agency’s action and the remedy ordered by him in the
remand initial decision. RID at 3; CAF, Tab 5 at 14. The appellant provides no
specific assertions rebutting the agency’s evidence, and therefore we find no basis
to disturb the administrative judge’s finding that the agency corrected the
appellant’s performance rating.
      The appellant asserts that the agency did not notify him of the date when it
had taken all actions to comply with the order, as required by the remand initial
decision. CPFR File, Tab 1 at 4; RID at 26. The agency disputes this contention.

based on the administrative judge’s decision to address the merits of the appellant’s
petition for enforcement instead of timeliness. See, e.g., Donovan v. U.S. Postal
Service, 101 M.S.P.R. 628, ¶¶ 9-11 & n.3 (2006) (declining to address the timeliness of
a petition for enforcement when concrete evidence supported the administrative judge’s
finding that the petitioner had not prevailed on the merits).
                                                                                 5

PFR File, Tab 2 at 5; IAF, Tab 5 at 14. The administrative judge considered this
argument below, but found that, even if true, he could order no meaningful relief.
CID at 4.
      The appellant also appears to argue that the administrative judge abused his
discretion in granting the agency an additional 7 days to respond to his order to
show proof of compliance. CPFR File, Tab 1 at 4; CAF, Tab 2 at 1-2, Tab 4.
After the agency did not respond to the administrative judge’s first order to
demonstrate compliance, the administrative judge issued a second order providing
the agency with an additional 7 days. CAF, Tab 4. He warned that failure to
comply could result in sanctions. Id. The agency responded within the period
allotted. CID at 4; CAF, Tab 5 at 11, 14. We discern no abuse of discretion by
the administrative judge. See Scoggins v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R.
592, ¶ 20 (2016) (observing that an administrative judge has broad discretion to
control the proceedings before her). In any event, the appellant has alleged no
harm based on the agency’s delays in its compliance or in responding to the
administrative judge’s first order, and thus these issues are moot. See Bables v.
Department of the Army, 86 M.S.P.R. 171, ¶ 20 (2000) (finding that the issue of
the agency’s temporary noncompliance was moot because the agency had since
complied and there was no remedy under the circumstances for its delayed
compliance); see also 5 U.S.C. § 1204(e)(2)(A) (providing that the Board may
order the withholding of pay from an employee charged with complying with a
Board order during the period of noncompliance).
      The appellant contends that his “petition for review is not just about an
evaluation” and reiterates that he suffered reprisal at the hands of agency
employees, reviewing his allegations of protected whistleblowing activity in
detail. CPFR File, Tab 1 at 4-6. The appellant also asserts that the agency failed
to remove the agency officials who retaliated against him by giving him a bad
performance appraisal. Id. at 4. However, the Board only has the authority in an
IRA appeal to order the agency to provide relief—it does not have any authority
                                                                                    6

over individual wrongdoers. 4 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g). To the extent the appellant
seeks to reargue the merits of his IRA appeal, we decline to revisit them here.
See Henry v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 108 M.S.P.R. 458, ¶ 24 (2008)
(finding that an administrative judge erred in revisiting the merits of the appeal
during compliance proceedings). If he is claiming compensatory damages, the
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act has provided the Board with the
authority to order such damages.         King v. Department of the Air Force,
119 M.S.P.R. 663, ¶ 15 (2013). However, we cannot order such damages when,
as here, the underlying events occurred prior to the December 27, 2012 effective
date of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. RID at 25; see
King, 119 M.S.P.R. 663, ¶¶ 17-18, 21, 29.
      The appellant alleges that the administrative judge was biased because his
decisions favored the agency. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. There is a presumption of
honesty and integrity on the part of administrative judges that can only be
overcome by a substantial showing of personal bias, and the Board will not infer
bias based on an administrative judge’s case-related rulings.             Vaughn v.
Department of the Treasury, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 18 (2013). An administrative
judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new
adjudication only if his comments or actions evidence a deep-seated favoritism or
antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Id. Here, the appellant
points to no specific improper comments or actions by the administrative judge
that indicated favoritism or antagonism, and we find his broad allegations of bias

4
   On December 12, 2017, the President signed into law the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2018 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283. In pertinent
part, the Act requires that agencies propose disciplinary action against supervisors
whom the Board has determined have taken an action in reprisal for protected
whistleblowing. RID at 13-14, 16-19, 25; see Pub. L. No. 115-91, § 1097(e), 131 Stat.
at 1621-22 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 7515). All of the relevant events here predate the
enactment of the NDAA. Regardless of whether this provision would apply to those
events, section 1097(e) requires agencies, not the Board, to take action. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7515(b). It does not grant the Board the authority to order disciplinary action as a
form of relief in an IRA appeal.
                                                                                      7

insufficient to rebut the presumption of judicial honesty and integrity. Id., ¶ 19
(reaching the same conclusion under such circumstances).
      Accordingly, we affirm the compliance initial decision.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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 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).

5
  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.
                                                                                        8

      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. 420 (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
                                                                                  9

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

      (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
                                                                                     10

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. 6   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.
      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

6
   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.
                                                                           11

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:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.