Court Opinion

ID: 9373329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:13.80823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.958080
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RICHARD A. BECKER,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DA-3443-16-0064-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: October 13, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Richard A. Becker, Coram, New York, pro se.

           Susan J. Sandidge, Dallas, Texas, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his nonselection appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant
     petitions such as this one only when:       the initial decision contains erroneous
     findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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).
¶2           On April 24, 1966, the appellant, a preference eligible, resigned from his
     position as a Resident Manager at the Army & Air Force Exchange Service
     (AAFES or agency) in Jakor. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 32, Initial Decision
     (ID) at 1-2. 2 AAFES is a Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) of the
     United States operating under the Department of Defense (DOD). ID at 2. The
     appellant filed an appeal with the Board alleging that he has been applying
     annually for employment with AAFES since 1968 and his applications have been
     overlooked. ID at 2. He argued that AAFES failed to acknowledge or respond to
     any of his requests for reinstatement to his former position because of
     discrimination based on his marriage to a Japanese woman and unspecified
     retaliation. Id. The appellant also alleged that the agency violated the Uniformed
     Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)
     (codified     as   amended     at   38 U.S.C.   §§ 4301-4335)   and/or   the   Veterans

     2
         “Jakor” is a reference to “Japan/Korea.” ID at 2 n.2.
                                                                                           3

     Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). 3 ID at 4; IAF, Tab 15 at 3. The
     appellant did not request a hearing on his appeal. ID at 2.
¶3         Because a question existed regarding the Board’s jurisdiction over this
     appeal, the administrative judge notified the appellant of the elements and
     burdens of establishing jurisdiction over his appeal under the applicable legal
     standards, including VEOA and USERRA, and she ordered him to file evidence
     and argument establishing the Board’s jurisdiction.        IAF, Tabs 2, 8, 18.      The
     appellant responded by asserting that he is a Gulf War veteran and that AAFES is
     part of DOD and thus subject to the Board’s jurisdiction. ID at 3; IAF, Tab 3.
     The appellant also asserted that, although he had filed complaints with the Equal
     Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the
     Office of Special Counsel, he had not received any reply to those complaints. ID
     at 3; IAF, Tab 3. The appellant did not indicate the bases for his complaints or
     state when he filed them, or provide copies of them. ID at 3 n.5. The agency
     responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that the appeal was outside the
     Board’s purview because the appellant was not an employee of AAFES, he
     provided no evidence to show that he ever applied, or was not selected, for a
     position or that he was denied reinstatement, and the AAFES is a NAFI, over
     which the Board lacks jurisdiction. In the alternative, the agency argued that the
     appeal was untimely filed. 4 IAF, Tab 7, at 5-7.
¶4         After considering the parties’ submissions on the jurisdictional issue, the
     administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on the
     written record. ID at 3-12. In dismissing the appeal, the administrative judge
     found that the Board has no jurisdiction over the appeal of an adverse action filed

     3
       It is undisputed that the appellant performed military service and received an
     honorable discharge. ID at 9.
     4
      Because the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, she did
     not make findings on the agency’s argument that the appeal was untimely filed.
                                                                                             4

     by NAFI employees or former employees of AAFES. ID at 4. The administrative
     judge also found that the appellant failed to establish by preponderant evidence
     that he exhausted his administrative remedies with DOL regarding the agency’s
     failure to select him for a position; therefore, his request for corrective action
     under VEOA must be dismissed. ID at 11-12. The administrative judge further
     found that the appellant failed to establish jurisdiction over his appeal under
     USERRA,      applying    the   criteria   for   establishing   jurisdiction   over   both
     reemployment claims and discrimination claims under that statute .             ID at 10,
     12-13. In support of this finding, the administrative judge determined that the
     Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal as a USERRA reemployment case
     because the appellant did not establish he was entitled to assert a right to
     reemployment under 38 U.S.C. §§ 4312-4318, given that he failed to show that
     his 1966 resignation from AAFES was related to his performance of military duty
     and both his employment and military duty occurred prior to 1994, the effective
     date of the applicable statute.     ID at 5.     The administrative judge, moreover,
     found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the Board has jurisdiction over
     his appeal because he did not show that his military status was a motivating or
     substantial factor in the agency’s failure to select him for the position(s) he
     sought. ID at 9-11.
¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review with the Board challenging the
     initial decision.   Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.             The agency has
     responded in opposition to his petition, and he has replied. PFR File, Tabs 3-4.
¶6         On review, the appellant generally references VEOA and USERRA, but he
     does not clearly address the jurisdictional issues beyond mentioning that he made
     sufficient allegations in his previous Board appeals to establish jurisdiction here. 5

     5
       The appellant has filed more than 80 appeals with the Board. Although that could
     mean that some or all of the claims raised by the appellant in this case are barred under
     the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata, we have not addressed those issues
                                                                                             5

     PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. The appellant raises various arguments unrelated to the
     dispositive jurisdictional issues, claiming that the agency lacked candor,
     attempted to denigrate his employment history, and went out of its way to “cover
     up the gross violations of the laws.” Id. The appellant also submits an illegible
     copy of a letter he wrote to AAFES in 1979 inquiring about the status of a 1978
     reinstatement application, which he filed in the Board’s Dallas Re gional Office
     on August 4, 2016. Id. at 3.
¶7         Most of the appellant’s submissions on appeal and on review are difficult to
     read. PFR File, Tabs 1, 4; IAF, Tab 14. Nonetheless, for the reasons stated in the
     initial decision, we find that the administrative judge properly dismissed this
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The administrative judge did an excellent job
     clarifying the appellant’s various arguments and explaining why the appellant
     failed to prove jurisdiction over his appeal under the applicable laws. Because
     we find that the appellant’s evidence and argument on review provides no basis
     for disturbing the thorough, well-reasoned initial decision, we deny his petition
     for review. 6 See Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997)
     (finding no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings when she
     considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made
     reasoned conclusions).

     given our finding that the administrative judge properly d ismissed the appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction.
     6
       On review, although the appellant refers to a letter that he allegedly received from
     DOL before the initial decision was issued in this appeal, he did not provide the Board
     with a copy of that letter as proof that he exhausted his claims before DOL to establish
     jurisdiction over his appeal under VEOA. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2; ID at 12; see
     Gingery v. Office of Personnel Management, 119 M.S.P.R. 43, ¶ 13 (2012) (finding that
     the Board must dismiss a VEOA claim if the appellant cannot show that he exhausted
     his DOL remedy).
                                                                                          6

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
      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).
      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:

7
  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.
                                                                                    7

                             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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                  8

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 com mercial 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).
                                                                                      9

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 Fed eral Circuit or any court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 8 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

8
   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.
                                                                           10

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.