Court Opinion

ID: 9373535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:42.40544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.023398
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

RENE ORTIZ,                                      DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                   SF-0752-21-0536-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                           DATE: July 28, 2022
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Joseph B. Frueh, Esquire, and William D. Carter, Esquire, Sacramento,
        California, for the appellant. 2

      Camille D.S. Stroughter, Esquire, Oakland, California, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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  The appellant’s representatives of record have not withdrawn their representation.
However, it appears from the record that the appellant has, at all times, represented
himself. E.g., Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 8-9. The Board liberally
construes pleadings filed by pro se litigants and has done so here. See, e.g., Becker v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 76 M.S.P.R. 292, 298 n.4 (1997).
                                                                                         2

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his involuntary resignation and breach of contract 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 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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
     clarify and correct harmless adjudicatory error, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         The administrative judge found that because the Board lacks jurisdiction
     over the appellant’s resignation, it also lacks authority to determine whether the
     agency breached an alleged contract with him regarding his resignation. Initial
     Appeal File, Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID) at 5 n.4, 8. This reasoning w as in
     error. The Board retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that has
     been entered into the record for that purpose, independent of its jurisdiction over
     the underlying matter appealed.        Delorme v. Department of the Interior,
     124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 14-21 (2017).       However, we agree that the Board lacks
     jurisdiction over the alleged contract on other grounds.       Specifically, neither
     party entered the alleged contract into the record, and the administrative judge did
     not accept it for enforcement. Id., ¶¶ 16, 21. Therefore, we lack enforcement
     authority over it.
                                                                                       3

¶3         Although the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction, she alternatively dismissed it as untimely filed. ID at 2 n.1. T he
     Board has held that the issues of timeliness and jurisdiction are generally
     inextricably intertwined in a constructive adverse action appeal and that the
     jurisdictional issue should be decided before reaching the timeliness issue.
     Petric v. Office of Personnel Management, 108 M.S.P.R. 342, ¶ 6 (2008);
     Hanna v. U.S. Postal Service, 101 M.S.P.R. 461, ¶ 6 (2006). The reason for this
     rule is that a failure to inform an employee of Board appeal rights may excuse an
     untimely filed appeal, and whether the agency was obligated to inform the
     employee of such appeal rights depends on whether the employee was affected by
     an appealable action. Hanna, 101 M.S.P.R. 461, ¶ 6. Here, the administrative
     judge found the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, or alternatively
     dismissed the appeal as untimely. ID at 2 n.1. Because they are inextricably
     intertwined, the timeliness issue need not have been addressed absent a fin ding of
     jurisdiction.   However, the administrative judge’s alternative finding of
     untimeliness was harmless because she correctly found the Board lacks
     jurisdiction over the appeal. Absent jurisdiction over the appellant’s claims, we
     need not address the appellant’s arguments on review concerning the timeliness
     issue. Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 9-10.
¶4         The administrative judge found that the appellant essentially failed to prove
     the truth of the matters he asserted because his statements were unswor n. ID at 6.
     Unsworn statements are evidence, and the fact that the statements are unsworn
     goes to their weight and probative value.         Scott v. Department of Justice,
     69 M.S.P.R. 211, 228 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 99 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
     (Table); see Borninkhof v. Department of Justice, 5 M.S.P.R. 77, 83-84 (1981)
     (holding that hearsay evidence is admissible in Board proceedings and the
     assessment of its probative value necessaril y depends on the circumstances of
     each case).     Further, in determining whether the appellant has made a
     nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction, the administrative judge may not weigh
                                                                                               4

     the evidence. Ferdon v. U.S. Postal Service, 60 M.S.P.R. 325, 329 (1994). We
     find the administrative judge’s error in suggesting the appellant’s unsworn
     statements had no evidentiary value and implicitly weighing their probative value
     at the jurisdictional stage was harmless. We agree with her conclusion that the
     appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction over his
     appeal because his allegations were vague and implausible.                ID at 6 -7; see
     Clark v. U.S. Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 466, ¶ 7 (2016) (explaining that
     conclusory and vague allegations do not meet the nonfrivolous pleading
     standard), aff’d per curiam, 679 F. App’x 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.4(s)(1)-(2) (defining nonfrivolous allegations, as relevant here, as
     assertions that are more than conclusory and are plausible on their face). 3
¶5         Because none of the above errors impact the ultimate conclusion that the
     Board lacks jurisdiction over the appellant’s involuntar y resignation appeal, we
     decline to grant review. See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R.
     281, 282 (1984) (stating that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a
     party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision).

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
            The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
     Board’s final decision in this matter.        5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.       You may obtain
     review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of
     3
       To the extent that the appellant cites for the first time on review statutes regarding the
     Board’s jurisdiction over decisions by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on
     retirement benefits, we find that those statutes do not provide a basis for finding
     jurisdiction over his alleged involuntary resignation and breach of contract claims. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 1-2 & n.1. Further, there is no evidence that OPM has issued a final
     decision on any retirement benefit. In general, the Board has jurisdiction over OPM
     determinations affecting an appellant’s rights or interests only after OPM has issued a
     final decision. See Reid v. Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R. 83, ¶ 6
     (2013).
     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.
                                                                                        5

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).
      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
                                                                                    6

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
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.
                                                                                 7

      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
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
                                                                                      8

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.
      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.

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

      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.