Court Opinion

ID: 9392772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-06 06:00:10.566966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.689939
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     STEVEN OLIVA,                                   DOCKET NUMBERS
                         Appellant,                  DA-1221-16-0199-W-1
                                                     DA-1221-15-0520-W-1
                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.                             DATE: May 5, 2023

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Steven Oliva, Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas, pro se.

           Melissa Lynn Binte Lolotai, Esquire, Denver, Colorado, for the agency.

           Janet E. Harford, Esquire, Temple, Texas, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     denied his request for corrective action in connection with his two individual

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     right of action (IRA) appeals, joined for adjudication. For the reasons set forth
     below, the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed with
     no good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         In an initial decision issued on January 13, 2017, the administrative judge
     found that, while the appellant established the Board’s jurisdiction over the
     joined IRA appeals, he failed to establish that he, in fact, made a protected
     disclosure, and she, therefore, denied his request for corrective action. Oliva v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket Nos. DA-1221-16-0199-W-1,
     DA-1221-15-0520-W-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 31, Initial Decision (ID) .
     The administrative judge noted that the appellant had asserted that the personnel
     actions at issue were also taken in response to the agency’s perception of him as a
     whistleblower.    She found, however, that he had failed to establish that he
     exhausted his remedies with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) on the issue of
     whether the agency perceived him as a whistleblower and that therefore the Board
     lacked jurisdiction over that claim.     ID at 12 n.8.      The administrative judge
     notified the parties that the initial decision would bec ome final on February 17,
     2017, if neither party filed a petition for review. ID at 17.
¶3         On December 18, 2018, the appellant filed a petition for review in which he
     explained that, based on information he received from OSC in response to a
     Freedom of Information Act request he had filed, he had just learned that the
     initial decision in his IRA appeals “was issued in error.” Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. The specific error, he asserted, was the administrative
     judge’s determination that she lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim that the
     agency perceived him as a whistleblower.        Id. at 5.   Based on that error, the
     appellant explained, he was required to relitigate the matter before OSC and the
     Board, and it took 2 years for him to get any relief, although he did not get full
     relief because those who retaliated against him were not held fully accountable.
                                                                                         3

     Id. at 7. The appellant stated that, because he did not have the evidence (OSC’s
     correspondence) by the filing deadline, he did not realize the impact the initial
     decision would have on him.       Id. at 5.   He asked that the initial decision be
     vacated and that a subsequently issued initial decision issued by another
     administrative judge granting him corrective action be made the Board’s final
     decision on this matter.    Id. at 6.   With his petition for review, the appellant
     submitted copies of his correspondence with OSC. Id. at 9-16.
¶4         The Office of the Clerk of the Board (Clerk) notified the appellant that the
     petition for review appeared to be untimely filed because it was not postmarked
     or received on or before February 17, 2017. PFR File, Tab 2. The Clerk afforded
     the appellant an opportunity to file a motion to accept his filing as timely and/or
     to waive the time limit for good cause and stated that such a motion must be
     accompanied by a statement signed under penalty of perjury, or an affidavit, filed
     on or before January 4, 2019.       Id. at 2.   In response, the appellant filed a
     statement signed under penalty of perjury. PFR File, Tab 3.

                                         ANALYSIS
¶5         The Board’s regulations require that a petition for review be filed within
     35 days after the date of issuance of the initial decision, or, if a party shows that
     he received the initial decision more than 5 days after it was issued, within
     30 days after his receipt of the initial decision. Palermo v. Department of the
     Navy, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 3 (2014); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The appellant does
     not indicate that he received the January 13, 2017 initial decision more than
     5 days after it was issued. Therefore, as stated in the initial decision, the petition
     for review was due 35 days later, on February 17, 2017.             ID at 17.     The
     appellant’s petition for review, filed on December 18, 2018, was more than
     22 months late. PFR File, Tab 1.
¶6         The Board will waive the filing deadline for a petition for review upon a
     showing of good cause for the untimely filing. Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4;
                                                                                         4

     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). The party who submits an untimely petition for review
     has the burden of establishing good cause for the untimely filing by showing that
     he   exercised   due   diligence   or   ordinary prudence     under   the   particular
     circumstances of the case.         Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4; Alonzo v.
     Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). To determine whether
     a party has shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of the delay, th e
     reasonableness of his excuse and his showing of due diligence, whether he is
     proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence of the existence of
     circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to comply with the time
     limit or unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarly shows a causal
     relationship to his ability to timely file his petition. Moorman v. Department of
     the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
     (Table).
¶7         In applying these factors to this case, we first find that , even though the
     appellant is pro se, the length of the delay, 22 months, is particularly significan t.
     See, e.g., Keys v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 173, ¶ 7 (2010)
     (finding that a filing delay of 17 months is not minimal).         The fact that the
     appellant did not realize what he describes as “the impact” of the “erred” initial
     decision, PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 3 at 5, does not establish good cause for his
     untimely filing. Brum v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 109 M.S.P.R. 129, ¶ 6
     (2008) (finding that lack of familiarity with legal matters and Board procedures
     did not establish good cause for the untimely filing of a petition for review). The
     appellant has not presented evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond his
     control that affected his ability to comply with the filing time limit or
     unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarl y shows a causal relationship to
     his ability to timely file his petition.      Miller v. Department of the Army,
     112 M.S.P.R. 689, ¶ 13 (2009).
                                                                                       5

¶8          The appellant’s main argument in support of his motion to waive the filing
      deadline is that, based on his communications from OSC, he now knows that the
      initial decision was incorrectly decided.    The discovery of new evidence may
      establish good cause for the untimely filing of a petition for review “if the
      evidence was not readily available before the close of the record below, and if it
      is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial
      decision.”   Satterfield v. U.S. Postal Service, 80 M.S.P.R. 132, ¶ 5 (1998)
      (quoting Boyd-Casey v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 62 M.S.P.R. 530, 532
      (1994)). The correspondence from OSC, dated December 2018, is new in that it
      postdates July 12, 2016, the close of the record below.          However, it is not
      material because it is not of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different
      from that of the administrative judge. An OSC employee’s opinion on an issue in
      a case before the Board does not constitute binding precedent.       Cf. Conway v.
      Office of Personnel Management, 59 M.S.P.R. 405, 412 n.4 (1993) (finding that
      an initial decision which reached the opposite result on the sam e issue that is
      involved in a current Board appeal is not a matter for resolution by the Board).
      Therefore, the evidence the appellant has proffered on review does not establish
      good cause for the untimely filing of his petition for review.
¶9          In sum, the appellant has not shown that he exercised due diligence or
      ordinary prudence under the circumstances, and his petition for review must be
      dismissed. Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4.
¶10         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed with no
      good cause shown. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection
      Board regarding the timeliness of the petition for re view. The initial decision
      remains the final decision of the Board regarding the joined IRA appeals.
                                                                                         6

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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:

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.
                                                                                   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. 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
                                                                                  8

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
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 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

      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

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.
                                                                           10

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.