Court Opinion

ID: 9373076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:35.24326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.572856
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KEISHA KINLOCKE,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-0714-21-0570-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: January 19, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Keisha Kinlocke, Lithonia, Georgia, pro se.

           Torrey Smith, Esquire, Decatur, Georgia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her appeal as untimely filed.       For the reasons discussed below, we
     GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, REVERSE the initial decision, and

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 id entified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                    2

     REMAND the case to the regional office for further adjudication in accordance
     with this Remand Order.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2        Effective February 19, 2021, the agency removed the appellant on a charge
     of excessive absences, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 714. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 8 at 27, 29-32. On February 23, 2021, the appellant amended her pending
     equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint to include the effected removal
     action. See IAF, Tab 12 at 4; Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 13-14.
¶3        The appellant filed the instant Board appeal on August 10, 2021.       IAF,
     Tab 1. At that time, more than 120 days had passed since the appellant amended
     her EEO complaint without the issuance of a final agency decision.           The
     administrative judge dismissed the appeal, finding that it was untimely filed
     under 38 U.S.C. § 714(c)(4)(B), which provides that an appeal of a removal,
     demotion, or suspension under § 714 “may only be made if such appeal is made
     not later than 10 business days after the date of such removal, demotion, or
     suspension.”
¶4        While the appellant’s petition for review was pending, the Board issued its
     decision in Wilson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 7. The Board
     held in Wilson that when, as in this case, an individual covered by 38 U.S.C.
     § 714 files a mixed-case appeal after filing a formal complaint with the agency,
     the appeal is governed by the procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7702 and the
     Board’s implementing regulations.     Wilson, 2022 MSPB 7, ¶¶ 15-19, 25.      As
     relevant here, 5 U.S.C. § 7702 provides that if an appellant elects to file a
     mixed-case EEO complaint, and the agency fails to issue a final decision on the
     complaint within 120 days, the employee’s right to file a Board appeal vests and
     she may appeal to the Board “at any time” thereafter.      5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(2),
     (e)(2); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.151(a)(1), 1201.154(b)(2).      The appellant’s
     Board appeal was therefore timely filed, as more than 120 days had passed since
                                                                                       3

     she amended her formal EEO complaint to include the removal claim, and the
     agency had not issued a final decision on her complaint.                See Wilson,
     2022 MSPB 7, ¶¶ 4-5, 25.      Accordingly, we reverse the initial decision and
     remand the case for further adjudication.

                                          ORDER
¶5        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
     for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

     FOR THE BOARD:                                     /s/ for
                                                 Jennifer Everling
                                                 Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.