Court Opinion

ID: 9905470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:00:23.235013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:36.570760
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GARY A. BUFALO,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         CH-0831-18-0487-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                         DATE: November 28, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Gary A. Bufalo, Sr. , Charlotte, North Carolina, pro se.

           Jane Bancroft , Washington, D.C., 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
     affirmed the final decision by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that
     denied his request for a waiver of the interest on his redeposit for service for
     which he previously received a refund.        For the reasons set forth below, the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
     cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant filed an appeal of the July 10, 2018 final decision by OPM
     denying his request for a waiver of the interest on his redeposit for service for
     which he had received a refund. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 4, 7-8. The
     administrative judge originally set a prehearing conference for August 23, 2018,
     and a hearing date for October 15, 2018. IAF, Tab 3 at 1, 3. In an Order to Show
     Cause, the administrative judge postponed the prehearing conference and ordered
     the appellant to submit evidence proving the Board’s jurisdiction over the matter.
     IAF, Tab 10 at 2-3. Following the appellant’s response, the administrative judge
     issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 11,
     Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID).       According to the administrative judge, the
     appellant was not entitled to a waiver of interest on his refunded service as a
     matter of law, and thus, the administrative judge denied the appellant’s request
     for a hearing.   Id.   The initial decision informed the appellant that it would
     become final on October 1, 2018. ID at 3.
¶3         On October 7, 2018, the appellant filed a petition for review. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. On October 10, 2018, he filed a motion to accept his
     petition for review as timely or to waive the time limit. PFR File, Tab 3. The
     agency responded to both the appellant’s motion and his petition for review. PFR
     File, Tab 5. According to the appellant, the administrative judge did not appear
     for the prehearing conference, and he was told to maintain the set date of his
     hearing for October 15, 2018. 2 PFR File, Tab 3 at 2. He further states that, on
     October 1, 2018, he called the Clerk of the Board to confirm the upcoming
     hearing date and was informed that the case had been closed as of September 27,

     2
       In her August 8, 2018 Order to Show Cause, the administrative judge postponed the
     prehearing conference. IAF, Tab 10 at 2. It appears the appellant was not aware of this
     postponement.
                                                                                         3

     2018. Id. The appellant asserts that because the administrative judge told him to
     maintain the October 15, 2018 hearing date, and he did not learn his case was
     closed until October 1, 2018, he did not feel the need to file for an extension of
     his petition for review. Id. at 3. Instead, he was “just trying to get a conversation
     with the Judge and had a date already on the calendar.” Id.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

     The appellant’s petition for review is untimely.
¶4         To the extent the appellant is arguing that the petition for review was timely
     based on a delayed receipt of the initial decision, we disagree.       Although the
     appellant claims he did not learn that his case had been closed until October 1,
     2018, we note that he is an e-filer and is deemed to have received the initial
     decision on the date of electronic submission, August 27, 2018. 3 PFR File, Tab 3
     at 2; see Palermo v. Department of the Navy, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 3 (2014);
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2).     Moreover, in his petition for review, the appellant
     admitted that he received the initial decision on August 27, 2018, the date of its
     submission. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. Accordingly, any petition for review was due
     35 days later, by October 1, 2018. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Further, the initial
     decision stated that it would become final on October 1, 2018, unless he filed a
     petition for review by that date. ID at 3. Accordingly, his petition for review
     filed on October 7, 2018, is untimely by 6 days.

     The appellant has failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimeliness of his
     petition for review.
¶5         The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review only
     upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing.        Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R.
     694, ¶ 4; 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.113(d), 1201.114(f). Good cause is established by
     showing that a party exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the

     3
       Because the initial decision was issued on August 27, 2018, it appears the appellant
     either misunderstood or typed the incorrect date on his motion. PFR File, Tab 3 at 2;
     ID at 1.
                                                                                          4

     particular circumstances of the case.      Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4.         To
     determine whether a party has shown good cause, the Board will consider the
     length of the delay, the reasonableness of the party’s 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 limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune
     which similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely file his
     petition. Id.
¶6         The fact that the appellant is pro se and the filing delay was only 6 days is
     insufficient to demonstrate good cause.       See Belcher v. U.S. Postal Service,
     101 M.S.P.R. 58, ¶ 7 (2006) (declining to excuse a pro se appellant’s 6-day filing
     delay because he did not show that he exercised due diligence); Lockhart v. Office
     of Personnel Management, 94 M.S.P.R. 396, ¶¶ 7-8 (2003) (declining to excuse a
     5-day delay in filing where the pro se appellant failed to show good cause for the
     delay); see also Harris v. Department of Defense, 101 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶ 10 (2006)
     (finding an 8-day delay is neither lengthy nor minimal).             The Board has
     consistently denied a waiver of its filing deadline if a good reason for the delay is
     not shown, even where the delay is minimal and the appellant is pro se.
     Edeburn v. U.S. Postal Service, 95 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶ 16 (2004).
¶7         Here, the appellant’s excuse is essentially that, because there was a
     previously scheduled hearing for October 15, 2018, he did not feel the need to file
     a petition for review because he already had a conversation scheduled with the
     administrative judge.    PFR File, Tab 3 at 2-3.        He further claims that, on
     October 1, 2018, he was told by the Clerk of the Board that his case was closed,
     but the Clerk did not mention that any petition for review was due that day. Id.
     at 2. Neither of these justifications demonstrate that the appellant exercised due
     diligence or ordinary prudence in attempting to timely file his petition for review,
     especially given that the initial decision states in clear terms that any petition for
     review must be filed before October 1, 2018. ID at 3. Therefore, we conclude
                                                                                           5

     that the appellant has failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimeliness of his
     petition for review.
¶8         To the extent the appellant is challenging the administrative judge’s failure
     to issue a close of record order or hold a hearing, any alleged error had no effect
     on the appellant’s ability to timely file a petition for review, and thus, we decline
     to address these arguments.        See Panter v. Department of the Air Force,
     22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial
     to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial
     decision).   Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed.
     This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the
     timeliness of the petition for review.       The initial decision remains the final
     decision of the Board regarding OPM’s reconsideration 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
     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

     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.
                                                                                         6

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
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
                                                                                  7

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,
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
                                                                                      8

      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).
      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
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.
                                                                                9

      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:                        ______________________________
                                      Jennifer Everling
                                      Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.