Court Opinion

ID: 9838814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 07:00:29.566374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:51.025184
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DAVID S. TURRENTINE,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DA-0752-17-0224-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: September 7, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Raymond Gillen, Kerrville, Texas, for the appellant.

           Sean A. Safdi, Esquire, and Daniel Morvant, San Antonio, Texas, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we
     GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 identified 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 Dallas Regional Office for further adjudication in
     accordance with this Remand Order.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2        The agency removed the appellant, effective February 5, 2017, based on the
     charge of failure to meet the suitability requirements to obtain a personal
     identification verification card. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8 at 9 -15. The
     decision notice advised the appellant of his rights to challenge the action,
     including his right to file a Board appeal or a grievance under the negotiated
     grievance procedure.    Id. at 11.   The appellant designated his union as his
     representative, and the local union president timely filed a grievance challenging
     the removal on the appellant’s behalf. IAF, Tab 13 at 13-14, 18, 20. After the
     agency denied the grievance, the appellant appealed his removal to the Board. Id.
     at 15; IAF, Tab 2.
¶3        Without holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the administrative judge
     found that the appellant grieved his removal before filing his Board appeal and
     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7121(e)(1). IAF,
     Tab 19, Initial Decision. The appellant filed a petition for review, to which the
     agency responded. Petition for Review File, Tabs 1, 3.
¶4        An employee subjected to an adverse action which also falls within the
     coverage of a negotiated grievance procedure may challenge the action through a
     Board appeal or the negotiated grievance procedure, but not both. 5 U.S.C.
     § 7121(e)(1).   An employee is deemed to have exercised an option when he
     timely files a notice of appeal or timely files a written grievance, whichever
     occurs first. Id. However, for an election of an option to be binding, it must be
     knowing and informed. Kaszowski v. Department of the Air Force, 2023 MSPB
     15, ¶ 5.   Thus, the Board’s regulations require that, when an agency issues a
     decision notice for any action appealable to the Board, it must notify the
     employee of the available avenues to challenge the agency action and the
                                                                                           3

     preclusive effect any election will have on the employee’s Board appeal rights.
     Id.; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.21(d)(1). The Board has held that, when an agency takes
     an action without informing the appellant of his procedural options under
     5 U.S.C. § 7121 and the preclusive effect of electing one of those options, any
     subsequent election by the appellant is not binding. Kaszowski, 2023 MSPB 15,
     ¶ 5.
¶5          In Kaszowksi, which was decided after the issuance of the initial decision in
     this case, the Board held that an employee who grieved her removal before
     appealing it to the Board did not waive her right to file a Board appeal when the
     decision notice did not fully explain the consequences of choosing the appeal or
     grievance procedure, i.e., did not explicitly inform her that she could raise her
     removal with the Board or under the negotiated grievance procedure, bu t not both,
     or that grieving her removal would result in waiver of her Board appeal right.
     2023 MSPB 15, ¶¶ 2, 7. The notice of appeal rights here, which is virtually
     identical to that in Kaszowski, suffers from the very same defect. 2 Id., ¶¶ 6-7;
     IAF, Tab 8 at 11-12.       The appellant thus cannot be deemed to have made a
     knowing and informed election or to have waived his Board appeal right by
     having first filed a grievance. Kaszowski, 2023 MSPB 15, ¶ 7. We thus vacate

     2
      The notice of appeal rights provided by the agency informed the appellant that he was
     entitled to: “a) appeal this action to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or;
     b) seek corrective action before the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) or ; c) file a
     grievance under the negotiated grievance procedure or: [sic] d) a discrimination
     complaint with the Office of Resolutions Management (ORM).” IAF, Tab 8 at 11. The
     notice continued as follows:
            You shall be deemed to have exercised your option to appeal the adverse
            action at such time as you timely initiate action to appeal to MSPB or
            OSC, or timely file a grievance in writing under the negotiated grievance
            procedure, or a discrimination complaint. If your appeal includes an
            allegation that the facility engaged in a prohibited personnel action in
            retaliation for protected whistleblowing, you may elect to file an appeal to
            MSPB, OSC, or a negotiated grievance and your election is based on
            which election you file first.
     Id.
                                                                                     4

the initial decision and remand the appeal for adjudication of the appellant’s
removal on the merits. Id., ¶¶ 1, 7. On remand, the administrative judge shall
fully identify the issues and afford the parties the opportunity to fully develop the
record on those issues through discover y and submission of additional evidence
and argument. The administrative judge shall then hold a hearing and issue a new
initial decision addressing, consistent with the most recent precedent, the merits
of the appellant’s removal and any affirmative defenses. 3 See Spithaler v. Office
of Personnel Management, 1 M.S.P.R. 587, 589 (1980) (stating that an initial
decision must identify all material issues of fact and law, summarize the
evidence, resolve issues of credibility, and include the administrative judge’s
conclusions of law and legal reasoning, as well as the authorities on which that
reasoning rests).

3
  In a February 21, 2017 letter, the Board rejected the appellant’s timely filed
February 14, 2017 appeal because it did not include a copy of the agency decision being
appealed and instructed him to refile a corrected appeal within 10 calendar days. IAF,
Tab 1. The appellant did not file a corrected appeal until March 10, 2017. IAF, Tab 2.
Thus, as the administrative judge correctly observed, there is a question as to whether
the appeal was timely filed or whether good cause existed for the appellant’s filing
delay. IAF, Tab 4. Because it appears that she did not rule on these issues and the
record is insufficient to decide them on review, on remand, the administrative judge
shall provide the parties with notice of the issues and requirements and afford them an
opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument. We observe that, allowing for
5 additional days for the delivery of the February 21, 2017 rejection notice, which was
served by mail, the appellant’s deadline to file a corrected appeal would have been
March 8, 2017, rendering his corrected March 10, 2017 appeal 2 days late, rather than
3 days late as determined by the administrative judge. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.23; IAF, Tab 1,
Tab 4 at 2.
                                                                                   5

                                         ORDER
¶6        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Dallas 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.