Court Opinion

ID: 9373298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:02.144551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.738342
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JONATHON M. SINCLAIR,                           DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-0752-16-0565-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,                     DATE: October 21, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jonathon M. Sinclair, Henderson, Nevada, pro se.

           Shari Mauney, Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                                  Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                    Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                     Tristan L. Leavitt, Member
                                Member Limon recused himself and
                        did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

                                       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 when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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

                                          BACKGROUND
¶2         On September 7, 2014, the agency used a Veterans Recruitment
     Appointment (VRA) authority under the Jobs for Veterans Act, Pub. L. No.
     107-288, 116 Stat. 2033 (2002), to appoint the appellant to the excepted-service
     position of Mail Clerk, GS-0305-05. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 21. On
     August 9, 2015, the appellant began a new VRA with the agency in the
     excepted-service position of Warehouse Helper, BB-6907-00. Id. at 17-19. The
     appointment documentation informed him that he was required to satisfactorily
     complete a new 2-year trial period. Id. On June 2, 2016, the agency terminated
     his appointment, citing misconduct on May 24-25, 2016. Id. at 14-16.
¶3         On June 17, 2016, the appellant filed the instant appeal with the Board.
     IAF, Tab 1. After issuing an order on jurisdiction informing the appellant of his
     burdens and reviewing the parties’ responses, the administrative judge dismissed
     the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without holding the requested hearing. IAF,
     Tab 7, Initial Decision (ID) at 1.
                                                                                       3

¶4        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision. Petition
     for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has not filed a response.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5        Whether the Board has appellate jurisdiction by statute in a removal or
     other adverse action depends on whether the appellant is a Federal “employee” as
     defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1).          Smirne v. Department of the Army,
     115 M.S.P.R. 51, ¶ 5 (2010). The appellant asserted below, and the agency did
     not dispute, that he was a preference-eligible veteran detailed to the Warehouse
     Helper position from May 14, 2015, until his official appointment to that position
     on August 9, 2015. IAF, Tab 1 at 1, 8. As a preference eligible in the excepted
     service, the appellant would need to have completed 1 year of current continuous
     service in the same or similar positions with the agency in order to have appeal
     rights before the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B); ID at 5.
¶6        We agree with the administrative judge that the appellant’s service on a
     detail does not entitle him to the rights of the position to which he was detailed
     and therefore cannot be credited toward his completion of 1 year of service in the
     same or similar positions.     ID at 5; see Wafford v. U.S. Postal Service,
     34 M.S.P.R. 691, 693 (1987). We further find that the appellant failed to make a
     nonfrivolous allegation that his Mail Clerk position was the “same or similar” to
     his Warehouse Helper position in that they did not involve related or comparable
     work that required the same or similar skills.    See Martinez v. Department of
     Homeland Security, 118 M.S.P.R. 154, ¶ 9 (2012) (citing Mathis v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 865 F.2d 232, 234 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). The appellant failed to make even a
     bare assertion that the Mail Clerk and Warehouse Helper positions were the same
     or similar. IAF, Tabs 1, 6; PFR File, Tab 1. Nor does the record contain any
     information regarding the duties of the positions.     Accordingly, the appellant
     failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that he was an “employee” with Board
     appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.
                                                                                           4

¶7         On review, the appellant alleges for the first time that his termination was
     based on partisan political reasons and/or preappointment reasons.           PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 4-5. As with career or career-conditional employees, individuals who
     are terminated during the first year of their VRA may appeal to the Board if they
     contend that they were terminated based on partisan political reasons, their
     marital status, or for reasons based on conditions arising before their appointment
     without being afforded the procedural due process rights set forth at 5 C.F.R.
     § 315.805. LeMaster v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 123 M.S.P.R. 453, ¶ 2
     n.1 (2016); 5 C.F.R. §§ 307.105, 315.806.         Although the administrative judge
     informed the appellant of the Board’s jurisdiction over such matters, IAF, Tab 3
     at 4-5, the appellant failed to make any assertion below that his termination was
     based on such reasons, IAF, Tabs 1, 6.           Because the appellant raised this
     argument for the first time on review, and he has not shown that he based his
     argument on new and material evidence not previously available despite his due
     diligence, the Board will not consider it. Banks v. Department of the Air Force,
     4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).
¶8         For the reasons set forth above, we deny the appellant’s petition for review
     and affirm the initial decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
           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

     2
       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.
                                                                                        5

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).
      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
                                                                                    6

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
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 resp ective
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 Employm ent
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
                                                                                      7

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
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. 3   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

3
   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.
                                                                                  8

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
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.