Court Opinion

ID: 9959792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 17:00:41.998947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:54.942082
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DELIRIS MONTANEZ,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DA-0752-23-0115-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 11, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Deliris Montanez , El Paso, Texas, pro se.

      Timothy D. Johnson , Esquire, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 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
dismissed her appeal concerning her involuntary separation from military service
with the U.S. Army Reserve (Army) and her removal from an Army promotion
list 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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).
      The administrative judge dismissed this appeal concerning the appellant’s
uniformed service in the Army Reserve for lack of jurisdiction. Initial Appeal
File, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID).      He found that the appellant failed to
nonfrivolously allege that she is an “employee” with chapter 75 appeal rights or
that she was subjected to an appealable adverse action. ID at 3. He also found
that, as an individual serving in the uniformed service, the Board lacks
jurisdiction over the appellant’s potential whistleblower retaliation claim and,
in any event, she failed to nonfrivolously allege that she exhausted her claims by
filing a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel. ID at 4 (citing Special
Counsel ex rel. Hardy v. Department of Health and Human Services ,
117 M.S.P.R. 174, ¶¶ 5-18 (2011) (holding that the Board lacks jurisdiction over
whistleblower retaliation claims brought by individuals serving in the uniformed
service)). On review, the appellant challenges the merits of her separation from
the Army Reserve, argues that the Army failed to release information to her
through the Freedom of Information Act, and discusses her attempts to resolve
her concerns against the Army though other means. Petition for Review (PFR)
File, Tab 1 at 4-6. She also attaches a letter from the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General regarding a whistleblower retaliation
                                                                                         3

complaint that she purportedly filed against DHS. Id. at 7. These arguments and
evidence are not relevant to the issue of Board jurisdiction over this appeal,
and we find no basis to disturb the administrative judge’s finding that the Board
lacks jurisdiction over the appellant’s claims against the Army. 2 To the extent the
appellant makes claims concerning her civilian employment with DHS, we note
that, at the time she filed her petition for review, the appellant had two pending
appeals against DHS and the Board since has issued a separate order in those
matters. 3   Montanez v. Department of Homeland Security , MSPB Docket Nos.
DA-1221-20-0330-W-2 and DA-1221-20-0421-W-2.                  Based on the foregoing,
we deny the appellant’s petition for review and affirm the initial decision
dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
       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

2
  A reply is limited to the factual and legal issues raised by another party in response to
the petition for review and it may not raise new allegations of error. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.114(a)(4). Accordingly, we will not consider arguments or evidence first raised
by the appellant in her reply. PFR File, Tab 4. In any event, the appellant has not
established that the argument or evidence contained in her reply is based on new
information that was unavailable prior to the close of the record before the
administrative judge despite her due diligence. Id.; see Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service,
3 M.S.P.R. 211, 213-14 (1980) (stating that, under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board
generally will not consider evidence submitted for the first time on review absent a
showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed before the administrative
judge despite the party’s due diligence).
3
  The administrative judge instructed the appellant that, if she was raising additional
claims against DHS, beyond those covered in her pending appeals, she could file a
separate Board appeal. ID at 3 n.4. The appellant has not filed any new appeals against
DHS.
4
  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.
                                                                                        4

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).
      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
                                                                                    5

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
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,
                                                                                    6

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
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
                                                                                      7

competent jurisdiction. 5   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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

5
   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

      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.