Court Opinion

ID: 9373651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:30.018091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.825939
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ESTON D. SPAIN, JR.,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       PH-315H-17-0448-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: June 9, 2022
       SECURITY,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Eston D. Spain, Jr., Camden, New Jersey, pro se.

           Andrew J. Hass, Washington, D.C., 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     dismissed his appeal as withdrawn. 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

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 a pplication 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 affec ted 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).

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         On November 27, 2016, the agency appointed the appellant to the
     competitive-service position of Emergency Management Specialist (Geospatial)
     with the agency’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region III,
     subject to a 1-year probationary period. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 74. 2
     On August 15, 2017, the agency issued a notification to the appellant that it was
     terminating him during his probationary period for unacceptable performance and
     absence without official leave, effective August 22, 2017. Id. at 15-20, 72. The
     appellant timely filed an initial appeal of the termination.       IAF, Tab 1.    The
     administrative judge notified the appellant of the elements and burdens of proof
     to establish Board jurisdiction over a probationary termination and ordered him to
     file evidence and argument establishing a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction.
     IAF, Tab 2 at 2-5. The agency filed a response to the order in which it asserted
     that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the termination.          IAF, Tab 6.     The

     2
      Specifically, the agency converted the appellant’s prior temporary appointment in the
     excepted service as a Geospatial Information System Specialist to a career -conditional
     appointment. IAF, Tab 5 at 74, 82.
                                                                                           3

     appellant did not file a response; rather, he filed a request to withdraw his appeal
     because he was not asserting discrimination on the basis of partisan political
     reasons or marital status and he did not have the resources to prepare a response
     while he was incarcerated. IAF, Tab 9. The administrative judge subsequently
     issued an initial decision finding that the appellant’s withdrawal of his appeal was
     clear, decisive, and unequivocal, and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. IAF,
     Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID).
¶3            The appellant has timely filed a petition for review requesting that the
     Board permit him to rescind his request to withdraw his appeal.          Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has filed an opposition to the petition for
     review. PFR File, Tab 3.

                        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4            On review, the appellant asserts that he wishes to proceed with his appeal
     because of recently discovered evidence. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. Specifically, he
     alleges that he has learned of e-mail and other correspondence between the
     district attorney’s office in the locale in which he is incarcerated and the regional
     administrator’s office in FEMA Region III regarding his incarceration,
     transmitted on or before July 14, 2017.           Id.   He requests review of this
     correspondence to ensure that “no impropriety” occurred in his termination and to
     explain the termination letter’s reference to his behavior . Id. at 3; IAF, Tab 5
     at 18.
¶5            When an appellant directly petitions the full Board for review of an initial
     decision dismissing an appeal as withdrawn, the Board will treat the petition as a
     request to reopen his appeal. Lincoln v. U.S. Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 486,
     ¶¶ 9-13 (2010). Ordinarily, an appellant’s withdrawal of an appeal is an act of
     finality that removes the appeal from the Board’s jurisdiction.         Id., ¶ 7.    A
     voluntary withdrawal must be clear, decisive, and unequivocal.             Id.      The
     administrative judge found, and the appellant does not dispute, that the
                                                                                     4

     appellant’s withdrawal of his appeal was clear, decisive, and unequivocal. ID
     at 2.
¶6           Absent unusual circumstances, such as misinformation or new and material
     evidence, the Board will not reinstate an appeal once it has been withdrawn.
     Lincoln, 113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶ 9. However, the Board may relieve an appellant of
     the consequences of his decision to withdraw an appeal when the decision was
     based on misleading or incorrect information provided by the Board or the
     agency. Potter v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 116 M.S.P.R. 256, ¶ 7 (2011).
     The appellant has not alleged, nor do we find, that that he relied upon misleading
     or incorrect information provided by the Board or the agency in deciding to
     withdraw his appeal.       Cf. id., ¶¶ 10-15 (excusing the appellant from the
     consequences of his decision to withdraw his appeal based on misinformation
     provided by the administrative judge regarding the scope of applicable Board
     remedies).
¶7           We find not persuasive the appellant’s argument that the correspondence in
     question constitutes new evidence. The appellant asserts that he recently learned
     of the correspondence but acknowledges that he has not seen it and does not
     identify when or how he learned of it. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. He acknowledged in
     his initial appeal that, upon his incarceration, his computer, badge, and mobile
     phone were transmitted from the police to FEMA Region III on July 11, 2017,
     3 days before the allegedly new correspondence, and that his wife had notified his
     supervisor about his upcoming hearing and anticipated release from incarceration .
     IAF, Tab 1 at 27.      The appellant evidently was aware before his request to
     withdraw his appeal of communication to the agency regarding his incarceration
     and has not articulated how the additional correspondence he has discovered adds
     new evidence to the instant appeal. Thus, we cannot conclude that the appellant
     has shown that the information contained in the additional correspondence was
     unavailable, despite his due diligence, at the time he requested to withdraw his
     appeal.    See Grassell v. Department of Transportation, 40 M.S.P.R. 554, 564
                                                                                      5

     (1989) (holding that, to constitute new evidence, the information contained in the
     documents, not just the documents themselves, must have been unavailable
     despite due diligence when the record closed); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).
¶8          Moreover, the appellant’s assertion that the correspondence could r eveal
     some     impropriety in his termination     is insufficient to show      that the
     correspondence is material either to the preliminary question of the Board’s
     jurisdiction over his probationary termination or to the merits of the appeal.
     Evidence is material to a proceeding only when it is of sufficient weight to
     warrant a different outcome. Freeman v. Department of the Navy, 88 M.S.P.R.
     659, ¶ 12 (2001), aff’d, 28 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002).        A probationary
     employee in the competitive service who has not completed 1 year of current
     continuous service, such as the appellant, has no statutory right of appeal to the
     Board.     5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A); Niemi v. Department of the Interior,
     114 M.S.P.R. 143, ¶ 9 (2010).       However, a probationary employee in the
     competitive service may appeal a termination if he alleges that it was based on
     partisan political reasons or marital status, or that his termination for
     preappointment conditions was procedurally deficient. Hurston v. Department of
     the Army, 113 M.S.P.R. 34, ¶ 8 (2010); 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(a)-(c). Alternatively,
     an individual, such as the appellant, can show that he qualifies as a
     competitive-service “employee” with 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 appeal rights by
     showing that he either was not serving a probationary period at the time of
     termination or he had completed 1 year of current continuous service under an
     appointment other than a temporary one limited to 1 year or less.        5 U.S.C.
     § 7511(a)(1)(A); Hurston, 113 M.S.P.R. 34, ¶ 9.
¶9          The appellant admitted that his termination was not based on partisan
     political reasons or marital status and has not alleged that he was terminated for
     preappointment reasons. IAF, Tab 9 at 1. Further, he has not articulated how the
     correspondence in question might show that he qualified as an “employee” with
     appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 at time of his termination. Even if he
                                                                                        6

were to establish the Board’s jurisdiction over his appeal, in the limited
circumstances that the Board would reach the merits of the termination, the
appellant has not shown that the correspondence is of sufficient weight to warrant
reversal of the termination. 3    Accordingly, we find that the appellant has not
established any basis for reinstating his appeal, and we affirm the initial decision.

                          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
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

3
  If an appellant establishes Board jurisdiction by proving that the agency based a
probationary termination on marital status or partisan political reasons, only then does
the Board proceed to the merits of the case. Burton v. Department of the Air Force,
118 M.S.P.R. 210, ¶¶ 8-11 (2012); 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b). In the event that an appellant
establishes jurisdiction over a termination for preappointment rea sons, the Board does
not reach the merits of the agency’s decision; rather, the Board’s jurisdiction is limited
to whether the agency failed to afford the appellant the procedural protections of
5 C.F.R. § 315.805, and, if so, whether the procedural error was harmful, such that the
action must be set aside.        West v. Department of Health & Human Services,
122 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 7 (2015). Finally, if an appellant establishes jurisdiction by
showing that he is an “employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1), the Board will not reach
the merits of the termination unless the agency’s procedures for effecting the
termination afforded the appellant minimum due process of law, including prior notice
and an opportunity to respond. See Gadsden v. Department of State, 102 M.S.P.R. 79,
¶¶ 16-17 (2006) (reversing the agency’s removal action when the appellant established
that he met the definition of an “employee” with Board appeal rights, but the agency
failed to provide him minimum due process of law under Cleveland Board of Education
v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)).
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.
                                                                                        7

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 particula r
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.
                                                                                  8

      (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
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:
                                                                                      9

                            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 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).

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.
                                                                                10

      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.
      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.