Court Opinion

ID: 9404098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 07:00:25.445709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:11.485165
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JAMES TUCKER,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  DE-4324-22-0298-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                    DATE: June 21, 2023
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           James Tucker, Omaha, Nebraska, pro se.

           Matthew John Mackey and Rachel Palacios, Joint Base Andrews,
            Maryland, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

          ORDER DENYING MR. DOWLING’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

¶1         Jonathan Dowling, a Commander in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps,
     Department of the Navy, has moved to intervene in the above-captioned appeal
     for the purpose of filing a petition for review of the initial decision issued on
     April 13, 2023, which denied the appellant’s request for corrective action under

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
     (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335) (USERRA). For the reasons set
     forth below, Mr. Dowling’s motion to intervene is DENIED.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant filed a Board appeal, alleging that the agency violated
     USERRA when it failed to select him for an Attorney-Advisor position. Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. Mr. Dowling, who was the hiring panel chair for the
     vacancy announcement at issue, testified at the appellant’s Board hearing as the
     appellant’s witness, claiming, among other things, that another panelist, the
     Senior Civilian Advisor, had made statements indicating that he had a strong
     preference for hiring civilians over members of the military reserves. Hearing
     Recording (testimony of Dowling).
¶3        After considering both the written record and the hearing testimony, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision finding that the appellant failed to
     establish his USERRA claim.       IAF, Tab 30, Initial Decision (ID).     First, the
     administrative judge explained that the only evidence suggesting that the
     appellant’s uniformed service was a substantial or motivating factor in his
     nonselection was Mr. Dowling’s testimony.       ID at 11-12.    The administrative
     judge credited the testimony of the Senior Civilian Advisor, noting that there was
     evidence Mr. Dowling may have been biased because he had a personal friendship
     with the appellant and a negative relationship with the Senior Civilian Advisor.
     ID at 11. Thus, the administrative judge concluded that there was simply “no
     credible direct evidence of uniformed service discrimination.”           Id.    The
     administrative judge also found that, even if the appellant’s uniformed servic e
     was a substantial or motivating factor in the Senior Civilian Advisor’s rankings,
     the agency established that it still would have selected the same individual, given
     that the selectee was the top-ranked candidate and was even strongly endorsed by
     Mr. Dowling. ID at 12.
                                                                                           3

¶4         Mr. Dowling now seeks to intervene in this matter for purposes of filing a
     petition for review, asserting that the administrative judge’s findings have caused
     him harm. 2 Motion to Intervene at 4. Among other things, Mr. Dowling argues
     that the initial decision undermined his credibility and judgment, which would
     hinder his ability to obtain relief in complaints he filed against his employing
     agency, and that his career had been negatively impacted because of th e Board
     proceeding. 3 Id.

                                          ANALYSIS
¶5         Pursuant to the Board’s regulations, any person, organization, or agency, by
     motion made in a petition for review, may ask for permission to intervene.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(i)(3).    Here, Mr. Dowling has not yet filed a petition for
     review, instead merely asking that the Board grant his request to file a petition for
     review in the future. Motion to Intervene at 2-4, 17, 25. Accordingly, he has not
     filed “a motion made in a petition for review,” as required by 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(i)(3).
¶6         Nevertheless, even if we were to liberally construe Mr. Dowling’s filing as
     a petition for review, he has not met the regulatory standard for granting a request
     to intervene. The Board’s regulations provide that a motion for permission to

     2
       The agency filed an opposition to Mr. Dowling’s motion to intervene on June 12,
     2023. Agency Response to Motion to Intervene. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55(b),
     any objection to a written motion must be filed within 10 days from the date of service
     of the motion. The certificate of service states that the motion to intervene was served
     by email on the agency on May, 18, 2023, and thus, accounting for a Sunday and
     Federal holiday, the agency’s deadline to file its objection was May 30, 2023. Motion
     to Intervene at 26; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.23. Accordingly, the agency’s response to the
     motion to intervene was untimely filed, and we shall not consider it.
     3
        Mr. Dowling also attached two exhibits to his motion to intervene, seemingly
     addressing the substance of his challenges to the initial decision, including an emai l
     memorializing a statement the Senior Civilian Advisor allegedly made regarding his
     reluctance to hire reservists and a copy of Mr. Dowling’s Freedom of Information Act
     request. Because Mr. Dowling has failed to establish the relevancy of these documents
     to his motion to intervene, we do not address them further.
                                                                                           4

     intervene will be granted if the requester shows that he will be affected directly
     by the outcome of the proceeding.        5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(i)(3)      Given that the
     initial decision has been issued, we are able to determine that the outcome had no
     direct effect on Mr. Dowling.       Mr. Dowling was not named as a responsible
     official in this appeal, and there is no adverse finding impacting Mr. Dowling.
     While Mr. Dowling asserts that the administrative judge’s findings may hinder
     his ability to obtain relief in future proceedings, such statements are mere
     speculation and do not warrant intervention. 4        Motion to Intervene at 4; see
     Stevens v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 36 M.S.P.R. 170, 173
     (1988) (finding that intervention was not warranted when there was no evidence
     beyond mere speculation that the initial decision would have any impact on the
     movant’s future). 5
¶7         In conclusion, Mr. Dowling is merely a witness who is disappointed with
     the outcome of this appeal. While the administrative judge’s findings may be
     bothersome to him, there is no basis for granting intervention.

     4
       Mr. Dowling alleges that the agency retaliated against him as a result of his internal
     reports and his testimony regarding the agency’s alleged violations of USERRA, which
     is the subject of a complaint filed with the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command
     and a complaint filed with the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.
     Motion to Intervene at 4.
     5
       Although Stevens, 36 M.S.P.R. at 172-73, interpreted 5 C.F.R. § 1201.34, the
     regulation governing intervention before an administrative judge, the language of
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(i)(3) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.34 are similar, including that both
     require that the movant show that he will be affected directly by the outcome of the
     proceeding. Therefore, we find the reasoning in Stevens to be persuasive here.
                                                                                     5

                                         ORDER
¶8         The motion to intervene is denied. The initial decision issued on April 13,
     2023, became the final decision of the Board on May 18, 2023.            5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113(c). The notice of appeal rights contained within the final decision
     governs further review rights, including any applicable time frames for exercising
     those rights.

     FOR THE BOARD:                                   /s/ for
                                              Jennifer Everling
                                              Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.