Court Opinion

ID: 9961563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:00:32.475349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:58.677937
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

TYRONE D. SCOTT,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        SF-1221-22-0512-W-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 18, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Tamika Sykes , Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.

      Harrison Spencer , Arlington, Virginia, 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 his individual right of action 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 the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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.   Except as expressly MODIFIED to VACATE the administrative
judge’s finding that the appellant did not exhaust his allegation that he engaged in
protected activity by filing a complaint with the Office of Inspector General
(OIG), we AFFIRM the initial decision.
      On review, the appellant asserts that the administrative judge conflated the
jurisdictional analysis with the merits and that he did not search for regulations
that could have applied to the appellant’s alleged whistleblower disclosures.
Scott v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-22-0512-W-1,
Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 4 at 9. We find that the administrative judge
properly advised the appellant of his burden to establish jurisdiction over his
appeal and applied the correct legal standards in the initial decision.     Scott v.
Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-22-0512-W-1, Initial
Appeal File (IAF), Tab 3 at 2-3; Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID). For the first time
on review, the appellant asserts that his alleged disclosures evidenced violations
of Army Regulation 870-5. PFR File, Tab 4 at 9-10. We decline to consider this
new argument because the appellant has not established that it was unavailable
before the record closed before the administrative judge despite his due diligence.
See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 213-14 (1980); 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.115.   To the extent the appellant alleges on review that he disclosed
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PFR File, Tab 4 at 6-7, we
agree with the administrative judge that those disclosures are excluded from
                                                                                  3

coverage under whistleblower protection statutes.     ID at 14; see Edwards v.
Department of Labor, 2022 MSPB 9, ¶¶ 9-25, aff’d, No. 22-1967 (Fed. Cir.
July 7, 2022).
       We next address the appellant’s assertion that the administrative judge
denied his “motion for permission to file additional evidence.” PFR File, Tab 4
at 5. On August 22, 2022, the administrative judge issued an order rejecting a
pleading filed by the appellant. IAF, Tab 12 at 1-2. He explained that, based on
the substance of the pleading, it appeared that it related to another of the
appellant’s Board appeals and not the instant appeal.     Id.    The administrative
judge explained that, if the appellant intended to make another submission related
to the Board’s jurisdiction in this appeal, he may do so before the record closed.
Id. at 2. The appellant did not make another submission before the record closed.
We therefore find no error in the administrative judge’s ruling. To the extent the
appellant asserts on review that the record before the administrative judge was
incomplete, PFR File, Tab 4 at 5, 9, he has not explained why he did not file the
documents he wanted the administrative judge to consider. We have considered
the appellant’s assertion that his counsel was ineffective. PFR File, Tab 4 at 5,
7-8.      However, an appellant is responsible for the errors of his chosen
representative.   See Sofio v. Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670
(1981).
       The appellant has not challenged the administrative judge’s findings with
respect to exhaustion. PFR File, Tab 4. The appellant’s initial filing with the
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is contained in one of the appellant’s earlier
filings with the Board, and we take notice that he appears to have exhausted a
claim with OSC that he engaged in protected activity pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(b)(9) by filing a complaint with the Department of Defense’s OIG
Hotline. Scott v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-16-0569-
I-1, Appeal File, Tab 1 at 31. We therefore vacate the administrative judge’s
finding that this protected activity was not exhausted.         ID at 15 n.9.   The
                                                                                      4

appellant has not challenged the administrative judge’s alternative finding that he
did not make a nonfrivolous allegation that any decision maker had knowledge of
his protected activity. Id. In fact, the appellant did not discuss his OIG activity
in any of his filings in this appeal. We therefore find that the appellant failed to
nonfrivolously allege that his OIG activity was a contributing factor to any of the
alleged personnel actions.     Accordingly, we affirm the administrative judge’s
dismissal of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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.

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

      (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
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
                                                                                  6

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,
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:
                                                                                      7

                            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. 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

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 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

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