Court Opinion

ID: 9406209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 14:00:53.55119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:28.078707
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1306   Document: 17     Page: 1   Filed: 06/30/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   AISHA TRIMBLE,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                   Respondent
             ______________________

                       2023-1306
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-3330-22-0254-I-1.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: June 30, 2023
                 ______________________

    AISHA TRIMBLE, Dallas, TX, pro se.

     DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.
                  ______________________

 Before HUGHES, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1306    Document: 17     Page: 2   Filed: 06/30/2023

 2                                           TRIMBLE   v. DVA

     Ms. Aisha Trimble appeals a decision from the Merit
 Systems Protection Board (MSPB) denying her request for
 corrective action under the Veterans Employment Oppor-
 tunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Because the Board’s findings
 were supported by substantial evidence and because the
 Board did not legally err, we affirm.
                              I
     Ms. Trimble served on active duty in the United States
 Army from August 1996 through June 2000. She was hon-
 orably discharged and has service-connected disabilities at
 30% or greater.
     In November 2021, Ms. Trimble applied for an Execu-
 tive Assistant position with the Board of Veterans Appeals
 (the agency) based on a job listing posted on USAJobs.gov.
 The listing used a merit promotion certificate and indi-
 cated that the position was only open to career transition
 Federal employees, current or former competitive service
 Federal employees, individuals with disabilities, military
 spouses, and veterans. Ms. Trimble qualified to apply for
 the position because of her status as a veteran.
     On November 16, 2021, the agency notified Ms. Trim-
 ble that it would “assess [her] qualifications based upon
 [her] resume, the responses [she] provided in the question-
 naire, as well as all other materials requested in the job
 opportunity announcement.” SAppx24. 1 On December 10,
 2021, the agency notified Ms. Trimble that she had been
 referred to the hiring manager. The agency also informed
 Ms. Trimble that she was entitled to “CPS-10-point prefer-
 ence” because she had a service-connected disability of 30%
 or more. Appx25.

     1   We use “SAppx,” to refer to the appendix attached
 to the government’s response brief, and “Appx” to refer to
 the appendix attached to Ms. Trimble’s opening brief.
Case: 23-1306       Document: 17    Page: 3    Filed: 06/30/2023

 TRIMBLE   v. DVA                                             3

      The job posting indicated that the agency was seeking
 six Executive Assistants. After accepting applications from
 November 15 to November 26, 2021, the agency identified
 521 candidates who preliminarily qualified for the six posi-
 tions. Of these candidates, about 92 were individuals who
 were 30% or more disabled veterans, including Ms. Trim-
 ble.
     This list of more than 500 candidates was sent to six
 executives (selecting officials). The list was split across
 three certificates of eligible candidates, and the applicants
 were listed in alphabetical order on each certificate. When
 the selecting officials were given the list of candidates, they
 were “reminded that while you are not required to select
 an internal candidate, you must consider internal appli-
 cants first.” Appx15.
      The selecting officials reviewed the applications and
 rated each candidate as either meriting or not meriting an
 interview based on the candidates’ ability or experience in
 four areas: (1) supporting a senior executive (or equivalent)
 in the Federal service; (2) overseeing or leading tasks or
 programs involving compliance with deadlines or organiza-
 tional change; (3) working collaboratively with executives,
 peers, and subordinates; and (4) supporting operations in a
 judicial or quasi-judicial environment. One of the selecting
 officials listed Ms. Trimble as a “maybe” for an interview,
 but ultimately she was not one of the 26 individuals inter-
 viewed.
     After conducting interviews in January 2022, six can-
 didates were extended offers. Of the individuals given of-
 fers, this record indicates that at least three are veterans
 or have prior military service, and at least one of the indi-
 viduals has service-connected disability ratings of at least
 30%. Ms. Trimble was notified that she had not been se-
 lected for an Executive Assistant position on February 9,
 2022.
Case: 23-1306     Document: 17      Page: 4   Filed: 06/30/2023

 4                                             TRIMBLE   v. DVA

     Ms. Trimble filed a complaint with the Department of
 Labor alleging that her right to compete as a preference-
 eligible veteran was violated. Her claim was denied be-
 cause the job listing was a merit promotion announcement,
 and so she was not entitled to “receive veterans’ preference
 points or priority over others.” SAppx1. Ms. Trimble filed a
 request with the MSPB for corrective action under the
 VEOA, arguing that the chosen applicants had been prese-
 lected and the agency violated statutes and regulations
 that entitled her to veterans’ preference. The Board denied
 her request for a hearing, holding there were no material
 facts in genuine dispute, and denied her request for correc-
 tive action in an Initial Decision. The Board first found that
 Ms. Trimble’s claims of pre-selection were “speculative and
 not supported by evidence.” Appx9. The Board also held
 that the Executive Assistant job listing was a merit promo-
 tion listing, to which the veterans’ preference requirements
 do not apply.
    Ms. Trimble appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                               II
     We set aside the Board’s decision only if it is “(1) arbi-
 trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
 in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
 quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
 (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(c). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence
 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
 a conclusion.” McLaughlin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 353 F.3d
 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Legal conclusions by the Board
 are reviewed de novo. Wrocklage v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
 769 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
                              III
     Ms. Trimble’s appeal raises two issues under
 the VEOA. The first is whether she was denied a right to
Case: 23-1306       Document: 17    Page: 5    Filed: 06/30/2023

 TRIMBLE   v. DVA                                             5

 compete under merit promotion procedures. The second is
 whether the agency violated her rights to veterans’ prefer-
 ence. We affirm as to both.
                               A
    We begin with Ms. Trimble’s right to compete. Because
 substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
 Ms. Trimble had the opportunity to compete, we affirm.
     The VEOA provides that “veterans . . . may not be de-
 nied the opportunity to compete for vacant positions for
 which the agency making the announcement will accept
 applications from individuals outside its own workforce un-
 der merit promotion procedures.” 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1).
 While this requires that preference eligible veterans have
 the chance to compete for such vacant positions, it does not
 ensure that the veteran will be selected for the position.
 Joseph v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 505 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed.
 Cir. 2007). Here, there is no genuine dispute that Ms. Trim-
 ble is a preference eligible veteran, and that the vacancy
 was to be filled through merit promotion procedures. 2 The
 only issue is whether she had a chance to compete for the
 position.

     2    In her brief, Ms. Trimble argues “[t]here is no such
 thing as a Merit Promotion Announcement,” and that
 “[t]he job opportunity was posted to USAJobs.gov as a
 Competitive Service vacancy announcement.” Pet. Br. 6.
 But this argument misunderstands the law. As discussed
 below in section III.B, there are two separate procedures
 for agencies to fill a position in the competitive service: the
 procedures for open competition jobs and the procedures for
 merit promotion jobs. Here, it is clear from the certificate
 of eligible candidates that this job was to be filled with
 merit promotion procedures. Appx22 (classifying the certif-
 icate as “Competitive Merit Promotion.”).
Case: 23-1306     Document: 17      Page: 6     Filed: 06/30/2023

 6                                               TRIMBLE   v. DVA

      The Board found that Ms. Trimble had the opportunity
 to compete because the agency publicly advertised the Ex-
 ecutive Assistant position, Ms. Trimble applied for the po-
 sition, and her application was referred to the selecting
 officials for consideration. This is evident at least from the
 job posting; the emails to Ms. Trimble confirming that her
 application was received and that she qualified as an ap-
 plicant; and the email to the selecting officials with the at-
 tached certificates, on which Ms. Trimble was listed as a
 candidate to consider. Though unnecessary to show an op-
 portunity to compete, we know Ms. Trimble remained in
 competition past the initial narrowing round and into the
 pre-interview stage because she was listed as a “maybe” on
 one of the selecting official’s interview lists. The record
 thus contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s
 conclusion that Ms. Trimble was not denied an opportunity
 to compete.
      Ms. Trimble argues that the agency violated her right
 to compete by preselecting internal candidates. Her sup-
 port for this argument is an email from an agency employee
 instructing the selecting officials to “consider internal ap-
 plicants first.” Appx15. But that email also specifies that
 the selecting officials were not required to choose internal
 applications, and any remaining allegations of preselection
 are speculative at best. See, e.g., Pet. Br., 5 (“I strongly be-
 lieve that neither [sic] of the six Selecting Officials thor-
 oughly reviewed 521 resumes and applications referred
 under the vacancy. . . . I believe names were randomly
 placed on Exhibits 12 & 13, and the Selecting Officials pre-
 selected the appointed Selectees.”) (emphases added); see
 also id. at 7–8 (speculating that the timing of the offer let-
 ters to the selectees and the lack of signatures necessarily
 mean there was preselection). Ms. Trimble’s subjective be-
 lief that the selecting officers preselected the six select-
 ees—and her implication that the agency then created a
 sham job posting, drafted certificates, and interviewed 26
 candidates to try to appear fair—is not supported by the
Case: 23-1306       Document: 17   Page: 7    Filed: 06/30/2023

 TRIMBLE   v. DVA                                           7

 record. Rather, as explained above, there is substantial ev-
 idence that Ms. Trimble was given a fair opportunity to
 compete.
     Ms. Trimble also alleges that she was denied a right to
 compete because all six selectees were current federal em-
 ployees at the time of their selections, and the selectees
 were less experienced than her or were not veterans. First,
 some of these allegations are speculative and reflect only
 Ms. Trimble’s opinions or beliefs. For example, Ms. Trimble
 states that one of the selectees is “possibly not a veteran,”
 and faults the Board for using DD-214 records as proof of
 military service because such records “can be falsified.”
 Pet. Br. 1–2. But nothing in the record suggests that the
 relevant documents were, in fact, falsified. Moreover, even
 to the extent Ms. Trimble does rely on the record, the facts
 that some selectees were not veterans and others had fewer
 years of experience as “Executive Assistants” are irrele-
 vant. It is not up to the MSPB, in a VEOA case, to decide
 which of the applicants are most qualified for this position.
 Miller v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 818 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed.
 Cir. 2016) (“[T]he VEOA does not authorize the MSPB to
 conduct, on appeal, a substantive review of the veteran’s
 qualifications and adjudicate the correctness of the
 agency’s hiring decision.”). Nor was the agency required to
 ultimately hire veterans and preference eligible veterans
 who were outside the federal workforce. All that was re-
 quired was that those individuals had the opportunity to
 compete. Joseph, 505 F.3d at 1384.
     Finally, Ms. Trimble cites to facts developed in a hear-
 ing for a separate MSPB matter under the Uniformed Ser-
 vices Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
 (USERRA). But the Board did not hold a hearing here, and
 the hearing in the USERRA case is not part of this record.
 These arguments are irrelevant and do not persuade us
 that the Board lacked substantial evidence in concluding
 Ms. Trimble had an opportunity to compete.
Case: 23-1306     Document: 17     Page: 8    Filed: 06/30/2023

 8                                             TRIMBLE   v. DVA

                               B
     Next, we address Ms. Trimble’s argument that the
 agency violated various statutes and regulations by not
 giving her veterans’ preference in the application process.
 Besides providing a right to compete claim, “[t]he VEOA
 provides preference eligible veterans with a right to file a
 claim for any agency hiring decision that violated the vet-
 eran’s rights under a statute or regulation relating to vet-
 eran’s preference.” Lazaro v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 666
 F.3d 1316, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 3330a).
 Here, Ms. Trimble argues the agency violated statutory
 and regulatory provisions that give veterans preference
 over other applicants by, for example, not applying her
 preference points; not creating and ranking her on a Best
 Qualified or Well Qualified Candidate Certificate; and not
 giving notice of passing her over and allowing her to object.
 Pet. Br. 1, 5–6. 3
      There are generally two ways for federal agencies to fill
 vacancies in the competitive service: (1) through open com-
 petition; or (2) through merit promotion. Joseph, 505 F.3d
 at 1381. Open competition is used when the agency seeks
 to fill the position with employees not already in the com-
 petitive service. Kerner v. Dep’t of the Interior, 778 F.3d
 1336, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, merit promotion is
 used to fill a vacancy by promoting or transferring an em-
 ployee of the agency or by hiring an applicant from outside

     3   Apart from the right to compete provision in 5
 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1), Ms. Trimble identifies the following
 veterans’ preference statutes: 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(11)(a-b),
 3309(1), 3311(2), 3313(2), 3317(b), and 3318(c)(2-4). She
 also identified the following veterans’ preference regula-
 tions: 5 C.F.R. §§ 332.401(a)(b) and 332.406(a)(1). These
 additional authorities all involve veterans’ preference.
Case: 23-1306       Document: 17   Page: 9    Filed: 06/30/2023

 TRIMBLE   v. DVA                                            9

 the agency who has “status” for that position. Joseph, 505
 F.3d at 1382.
      Different procedures apply depending on whether a job
 vacancy is filled through open competition or merit promo-
 tion. When a position is filled through open competition,
 the agency provides a “category rating system,” by which
 candidates at similar levels are in the same category; and
 a preference eligible with a compensable service-connected
 disability of at least 10% must be listed in the highest qual-
 ity category. 5 U.S.C. § 3319. See also Lodge v. E.E.O.C.,
 389 F. App’x 993, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (non-precedential).
 Within each category, preference eligible veterans must be
 listed above non-preference eligible individuals. 5 U.S.C.
 § 3319. Moreover, an agency may not select a non-prefer-
 ence eligible over a preference eligible in the same category
 unless it seeks and receives approval for a pass over. Id.
     These same advantages do not extend to the merit pro-
 motion context. An applicant “is not entitled to veterans’
 preference in the merit promotion process.” Joseph, 505
 F.3d at 1383. Veterans are guaranteed only the right to ap-
 ply and an opportunity to compete for a merit promotion
 position. Miller, 818 F.3d at 1359–60.
      Here, the vacancy was filled through merit promotion
 procedures. The job posting sought to promote or transfer
 either Federal employees into the role, or employees who
 had status to apply as an individual with a disability, a
 military spouse, or a veteran. Appx29. And the relevant
 certificate of eligible candidates was explicitly labeled a
 “competitive merit promotion” certificate. Appx22. This re-
 affirms that the role was to be filled through merit promo-
 tion procedures.
     Because this was a merit promotion listing, none of the
 open competition procedures Ms. Trimble identifies apply.
 Joseph, 505 F.3d at 1383. Thus, there are no underlying
 violations regarding veterans’ preference that give rise to a
 viable VEOA claim.
Case: 23-1306    Document: 17     Page: 10   Filed: 06/30/2023

 10                                           TRIMBLE   v. DVA

                             IV
     In addition to her merits arguments, Ms. Trimble ar-
 gues that the Board denied her a right to due process by
 not holding a hearing. Pet. Br. 1. She also alleges that the
 Board violated her rights, for example, by saying that it
 would likely “throw out [her] Appeal before [beginning] dis-
 covery;” ignoring material facts; and allowing the govern-
 ment to redact names during discovery. Id. at 6–8.
      In a VEOA appeal, “[t]he Board . . . has the authority
 to decide [the] appeal on the merits, without a hearing,
 where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and one
 party must prevail as a matter of law.” Jones v. Dep’t of
 Health & Hum. Servs., 640 F. App’x 861, 864 (Fed. Cir.
 2016) (citing 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23(b)). We agree with the
 Board that there was no genuine dispute of material fact
 about whether Ms. Trimble had the opportunity to compete
 for this position. Ms. Trimble did not identify any evidence
 disputing that the agency publicly disclosed the job posi-
 tion, received over 500 applications, reviewed her submis-
 sion, and held 26 interviews before choosing the six
 selectees. We see no reversible error regarding Ms. Trim-
 ble’s remaining procedural complaints and hold that the
 Board did not violate Ms. Trimble’s procedural rights.
                              V
     We have considered Ms. Trimble’s remaining argu-
 ments and do not find them persuasive. We affirm because
 the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evi-
 dence, the Board correctly held that Ms. Trimble was not
 entitled to veterans’ preference, and the Board did not err
 in deciding these issues without holding a hearing.
                        AFFIRMED
 No costs.