Court Opinion

ID: 9373113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:49.090176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.673857
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CHRISTOPHER R. CHIN-YOUNG,                      DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-1221-16-0581-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: January 13, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Christopher R. Chin-Young, Tallahassee, Florida, pro se.

           Kyle C. Barrentine, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 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 decision, which
     dismissed his individual right of action (IRA) 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;

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 petition er 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).

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW 2
¶2          On May 10, 2016, the appellant filed an appeal of his removal and the
     denial of a within-grade increase (WIGI). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 2.
     He indicated that he was bringing an IRA appeal and attached a copy of an
     April 21, 2016 close-out letter from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).         Id.
     at 3, 9-10. The administrative judge issued a show cause order informing the
     appellant of his burden of establishing that he had exhausted his remedies before
     OSC.    IAF, Tab 3.     She noted that, although the appellant had provided a
     close-out letter from OSC’s disclosure unit, the letter did not provide him with
     Board appeal rights because the disclosure unit does not investigate allegations of
     prohibited personnel practices, which are appealable to the Board.          Id. at 4.
     Rather, allegations of prohibited personnel practices were reviewed by OSC’s

     2
      We have reviewed the relevant legislation enacted during the pendency of this appeal
     and have concluded that it does not affect the outcome of the appeal.
                                                                                       3

     complaints examining unit. 3 Id. Thus, the administrative judge instructed the
     appellant to file evidence and argument concerning his exhaustion before OSC’s
     complaints examining unit. Id. at 5, 10. The appellant did not respond to the
     show cause order.      Accordingly, the administrative judge issued an initial
     decision, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.      IAF, Tab 5, Initial
     Decision (ID). In particular, she found that notifying OSC’s disclosure unit does
     not satisfy the exhaustion requirement under 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). ID at 7.
¶3        On review, the appellant contends that he was not properly served with
     copies of the pleadings below. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-7. The
     record reflects that on his initial appeal form the appellant listed both a post
     office (P.O.) Box in Roswell, Georgia, for his mailing address as well as a
     separate home address in Alpharetta, Georgia.       IAF, Tab 1 at 1.    The return
     address on his initial appeal lists the P.O. Box address.         Id. at 11.    The
     acknowledgment order and order to show cause were both sent to the appellant’s
     P.O. Box, however, the initial decision was sent to the appellant’s home address
     in Alpharetta, Georgia. IAF, Tabs 2-3, 6. On review, the appellant indicates that
     his correct address is his home address in Alpharetta, Georgia, but that he used
     the P.O. Box in another matter and still receives mail forwarded from that address
     to his home address. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. He also indicates that he received the
     agency’s designation of representative notice, which was mailed to his P.O. Box.
     Id. at 6; IAF, Tab 4 at 5. Thus, it appears the appellant received mail sent to his
     P.O. Box.
¶4        Even if the appellant did not receive the show cause order below, the initial
     decision was sent to his home address in Alpharetta, Georgia.          IAF, Tab 6.
     Further, on August 13, 2016, the same day that he filed his petition for review,
     the appellant registered as an e-filer, which allowed him to access all of the

     3
       OSC has reorganized its components such that the functions previously performed by
     the complaints examining unit are now performed by the investigation and prosecution
     division.
                                                                                       4

     pleadings below. IAF, Tab 7. Thus, we find that the appellant received proper
     notice of his burden of proving that he exhausted his administrative remedies
     before OSC.
¶5           On review, the appellant has failed to provide evidence that he exhausted
     his remedies before OSC’s complaints examining unit. Instead, he conti nues to
     reference the August 21, 2016 letter from OSC’s disclosure unit. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 7.     However, as the administrative judge properly found, notifying OSC’s
     disclosure unit does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement under 5 U.S.C.
     § 1214(a)(3).     ID at 7; see Mason v. Department of Homeland Security,
     116 M.S.P.R. 135, ¶ 16 (2011).
¶6           In addition, as the administrative judge found, even assuming the appellant
     had exhausted his remedy with OSC, his claims appear to be barred by a
     settlement agreement resolving his appeal of his January 18, 2011 removal. ID
     at 7-8.    In a May 19, 2011 settlement agreement resolving that appeal, the
     appellant waived all claims arising out of his employment with the agency that
     could have been filed as of the date of the agreement’s execution. Chin-Young v.
     Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-11-0394-I-1, Initial Appeal
     File, Tab 21. Thus, to the extent this appeal concerns the appellant’s January 18,
     2011 removal, we find that it is barred by the settlement agreement. The date of
     the appellant’s WIGI denial is unclear based on the record.        However, to the
     extent it occurred prior to May 19, 2011, such a claim is also barred by the
     settlement agreement.
¶7           Finally, the appellant’s arguments regarding the validit y of the settlement
     agreement resolving his prior removal appeal are not properly before the Board.
     Claims of noncompliance with a settlement agreement must first be addressed in
     the regional office as a petition for enforcement.     See Shipp v. Department of
     Health & Human Services, 107 M.S.P.R. 264, ¶ 8 (2007) (stating that a petition
     for enforcement must be filed in the regional office that issued the initial
     decision).     Further, the Board has previously considered and rejected the
                                                                                           5

     appellant’s claims that the settlement agreement resolving that appeal is invalid
     because it does not contain a waiver of his age discrimination claim under the
     Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and because it was the product of coercion
     by the administrative judge. See Chin-Young v. Department of the Army, MSPB
     Docket No. DC-0752-11-0394-C-3, Final Order, ¶¶ 9-12 (Sept. 29, 2016).
¶8         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision, dismissing the appeal for lack
     of jurisdiction.

                                NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
            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 whic h 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.

     4
       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

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
                                                                                 7

representative in this case, and your representative receives thi s 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
                                                                                      8

      (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 2 302(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. 5   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.

5
   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

      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 Feder al 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.