Court Opinion

ID: 9961203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 13:00:53.605387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:26.921916
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ALBERT PETER KESSOCK,                           DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         PH-0752-19-0297-I-1

             v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 17, 2024
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Alan Edmunds , Esquire, and Brittany Honeycutt , Esquire, Ponte Vedra
        Beach, Florida, for the appellant.

      Gina M. MacNeill , Esquire, and David Mapp , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
        for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed the agency’s action removing him from his City Carrier position based
on the charge of improper conduct. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one
only in the following circumstances:        the initial decision contains erroneous

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 and AFFIRM the initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
      In the notice of proposed removal, the agency stated that the proposed
action was based on a March 21, 2018 incident in which the appellant mishandled
a customer’s package. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 28. On review, the
appellant argues that he was not on the route or location alleged by the agency on
March 21, 2018. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4.
      It is clear from the record that the proposal notice incorrectly referred to
March 21, 2018 as the date of the incident when it in fact occurred on March 21,
2019. Despite the typographical error, it is also clear from the record that the
appellant understood that he was charged with misconduct occurring on
March 21, 2019. For example, the appellant was provided with a March 22, 2019
letter stating that he was being placed in an off-duty status for an incident
occurring on March 21, 2019, and the notes from a March 29, 2019
predisciplinary interview reflect that the appellant was questioned about an
incident occurring on March 21, 2019, and he admitted that he was assigned to
                                                                                          3

the delivery route alleged in the proposal notice on March 21, 2019. 2 IAF, Tab 5
at 42, 50. Thus, any error in the proposal notice did not harm the appellant. 3
See Palmer v. U.S. Postal Service, 36 M.S.P.R. 263, 266-67 (1988) (finding that
an error referring to the incorrect date in the proposal notice was not harmful
when the appellant knew what charge he had to defend against); Madison v.
Veterans Administration, 20 M.S.P.R. 234, 235 (1984) (same).
       Regarding the appellant’s argument that other Postal Service employees
have not been removed for worse misconduct, PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, we note that
the appellant must first point to specific employees who engaged in the same or
similar misconduct and received a more lenient penalty, see Hamilton v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 115 M.S.P.R. 673, ¶ 36 (2011). The appellant
has not identified comparator employees, and thus has not provided a basis to
disturb the administrative judge’s finding that removal was a reasonable penalty.
       Finally, the appellant asserts that he could not afford to retain an attorney
and that he has no legal knowledge. 4 PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. The Board has held
that an appellant cannot avoid the consequences of his choice to represent himself
even if he appears pro se because he cannot afford an attorney.                  Embry v.
Department of Transportation, 13 M.S.P.R. 505, 507 (1982). Further, there is no
statutory or regulatory requirement that an appellant be provided with pro bono
2
   Additionally, when the appellant grieved the proposed removal, his union
representative noted that the agency cited the incorrect date in the proposal notice and
that the incident set forth in the improper conduct charge actually took place on
March 21, 2019. IAF, Tab 12 at 32.
3
  The administrative judge also stated that the incident occurred on March 21, 2018,
although in one instance he was quoting the agency’s proposal notice. IAF, Tab 19,
Initial Decision at 2, 4. The appellant has not shown how the administrative judge’s
misstatement provides a basis to disturb the initial decision. 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).
4
  To the extent the appellant is alleging that the lack of counsel denied him due process,
he has not explained his claim. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. Moreover, he did not identify the
claim as an affirmative defense before the administrative judge during the prehearing
conference. IAF, Tab 17 at 1.
                                                                                      4

counsel.    Sanders v. Social Security Administration, 114 M.S.P.R. 487, ¶ 7
(2010).    Significantly, in the prehearing conference, the administrative judge
advised the appellant as to what he would be required to prove. IAF, Tab 17 at 1.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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).

5
  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 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. 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 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. 6   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

6
   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.
                                                                             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:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.