Court Opinion

ID: 9409072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:00:18.961136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.729811
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     VILLAMOR A. VISAYA,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-315H-18-0099-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: July 14, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Villamor A. Visaya, Riverside, California, pro se.

           Kim E. Dixon, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his 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 based on an
     erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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 grant ing
     the petition for review.    Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and
     AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decis ion. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113(b).
¶2         For the first time on review, the appellant claims that the agency terminated
     him based on preappointment reasons without following the procedural
     requirements set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 315.805. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 1 at 4-5. The appellant has not explained why he was unable to raise this
     argument before the administrative judge despite receiving notice in the
     acknowledgment order of the regulatory right to appeal under 5 C.F.R. § 315.806.
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 2 at 2-4; see Banks v. Department of the Air Force,
     4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (finding that the Board generally will not consider an
     argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it
     is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the part y’s
     due diligence).   Nevertheless, we find that the appellant has failed to make a
     nonfrivolous allegation that his termination was based on preappointment reasons.
     See Walker v. Department of the Army, 119 M.S.P.R. 391, ¶ 14 (2013) (finding
     that preappointment reasons include matters such as falsification of an
     employment application and omitting information during a preemp loyment
     interview and that they do not include postappointment performance or conduct
     deficiencies).    The agency based the appellant’s termination on alleged
                                                                                         3

     performance and conduct reasons, IAF, Tab 4 at 11, and the appellant has failed
     to articulate any alleged preappointment reasons, PFR File, Tab 1.
¶3         Further, the appellant makes the following additional arguments on review:
     the agency discriminated against him, denied him a reasonable accommodation,
     and violated his due process rights; the agency imposed an inconsistent penalty;
     and the agency did not prove the alleged performance-based reasons for his
     termination. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-6. We decline to address those arguments
     regarding the merits of the termination because they are not relevant to the
     dispositive jurisdictional issue.   Moreover, we agree with the administrative
     judge’s finding that, absent an otherwise appealable action, the Board lacks
     jurisdiction to address the appellant’s discrimination and due process claims.
     IAF, Tab 5, Initial Decision (ID) at 9; see Smith v. Department of Defense,
     106 M.S.P.R. 228, ¶ 13 (2007) (explaining that the Board has no jurisdiction t o
     review constitutional claims that are not coupled with independently appealable
     actions); Wren v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2 (1980) (holding that
     prohibited personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) are not an independent
     source of Board jurisdiction), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867, 871-73 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
¶4         Finally, we find that the appellant’s remaining claims on review that he was
     denied a hearing and attorney representation before the Board fail to provide a
     reason to disturb the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. Because we agree
     with the administrative judge’s conclusion that the appellant failed to make a
     nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction, he is not entitled to a hearing. ID at 9; see
     Henderson v. Department of the Treasury, 114 M.S.P.R. 149, ¶ 8 (2010)
     (observing that, if an appellant makes a nonfrivolous allegation of Board
     jurisdiction, he is entitled to a hearing on the jurisdictional question). Further,
     the appellant did not designate a representative on the initial appeal form, and his
     decision to proceed pro se is not a sufficient basis to disturb the initial decision.
     IAF, Tab 1 at 3; see Murdock v. Government Printing Office, 38 M.S.P.R. 297,
                                                                                           4

     299 (1988) (observing that a pro se appellant may not escape the consequences of
     inadequate representation).
¶5         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                              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.
           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).

     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

      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
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 o btain
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. 420 (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
                                                                                  6

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:
                            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
                                                                                      7

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 sectio n
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).
      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

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 th e 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

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.