Court Opinion

ID: 9373671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:36.816253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.093971
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     WANDA E. DUGGINS,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-315H-17-0582-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: May 25, 2022
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Wendell J. Echols, Sr., Tuskegee, Alabama, for the appellant.

           W. Robert Boulware, Esquire, Montgomery, Alabama, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her probationary termination 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        On    January 8,   2017,   the   agency   appointed    the   appellant   to   the
     competitive-service position of WG-06 Motor Vehicle Operator, subject to a
     1-year probationary period. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 9. Five months
     into her appointment, on June 9, 2017, the agency terminated the appellant for
     unacceptable conduct. Id. at 10-13.
¶3        The appellant filed a Board appeal and requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1
     at 2, 4. She disputed the merits of her termination, arguing that she demonstrated
     good performance, and that the agency failed to give her any warning before
     terminating her. Id. at 6. The administrative judge issued a jurisdictional order,
     informing the appellant that the Board may not have jurisdiction over her appeal
     and notifying her of the standard for establishing jurisdiction under both 5 C.F.R.
     § 315.806 and 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.        IAF, Tab 3.      The administrative judge
     ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument to prove that the appeal is
     within the Board’s jurisdiction. Id. at 4-5. The agency filed a motion to dismiss
     the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, IAF, Tab 5, and the appellant filed a response
                                                                                        3

     in opposition, arguing that she has Board appeal rights as a reinstatement eligible,
     IAF, Tab 6. The administrative judge issued an initial decision, finding that the
     appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction and
     dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing.        IAF, Tab 7,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 4.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review, reasserting her argument that
     she has Board appeal rights as a reinstatement eligible.       Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 2. The agency has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 4.

                                        ANALYSIS
¶5         Individuals who are serving a probationary or trial period under an initial
     appointment and who have not completed 1 year of current continuous service
     have no right to appeal their terminations to the Board under the adverse action
     provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 75. McCormick v. Department of the Air Force,
     307 F.3d 1339, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In this case, it appears to be undisputed
     that the appellant lacked 1 year of current continuous service.      However, she
     argues that she has chapter 75 appeal rights on the basis that she was eligible for
     reinstatement under 5 C.F.R. § 315.401. PFR File, Tab 1. She seems to imply
     that she completed a probationary period under a previous appointment and that
     she should therefore not have been required to serve a probationary period during
     the appointment at issue. Id.; see 5 C.F.R. §§ 315.402(b), .801(a)(2).
¶6         We have considered the appellant’s allegations of fact, but even if they are
     true, we find them to be immaterial because an agency’s ability to reinstate an
     employee under 5 C.F.R. § 315.401 is discretionary. Hicks v. Department of the
     Navy, 33 M.S.P.R. 511, 512-13 (1987). In other words, even if the appellant were
     eligible for reinstatement, this does not mean that she was, in fa ct, appointed by
     reinstatement, and there is nothing in the appeal file to indicate that she was. Cf.
     Armstrong v. Department of the Navy, 6 M.S.P.R. 273, 274-75 (1981).
                                                                                                4

¶7         For the reasons explained in the initial decision, we agree with the
     administrative judge that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal. ID
     at 2-4. The appellant does not qualify as a competitive-service employee with
     adverse action appeal rights because she was serving a 1 -year probationary period
     when she was terminated, and she did not have 1 year of current continuous
     service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less. See
     5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A); Hurston v. Department of the Army, 113 M.S.P.R. 34,
     ¶¶ 9-10 (2010). In addition, it is undisputed that the appellant was terminated for
     postappointment reasons, and she has not alleged that her termination was based
     on partisan political reasons or marital status. IAF, Tab 5 at 10; see Honea v.
     Department of Homeland Security, 118 M.S.P.R. 282, ¶¶ 6, 10 (2012), aff’d,
     524 F. App’x 623 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 5 C.F.R. §§ 315.804, .806(a)-(b).

                               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
     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.

     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

      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
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
                                                                                  6

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.
      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:
                                                                                       7

                            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 review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

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 b y 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 c ompetent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  8

      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 websi te 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.