Court Opinion

ID: 9929882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 17:01:08.483438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:58:06.871493
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ANDRE J. BOWSER,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        NY-315I-17-0065-I-1

                  v.

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                        DATE: February 2, 2024
       AGENCY,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Andre J. Bowser , Holyoke, Massachusetts, pro se.

           Amanda B. Stulman , New York, New York, 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
     dismissed his appeal of his supervisory probationary reassignment for lack of
     Board jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the appellant’s petition for
     review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e), (g).

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

¶2        The petition for review was filed over 14 months after the filing deadline.
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID) at 5; Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.     In his motion to waive the deadline, the appellant
     explained that he was deployed on military orders during the adjudication of his
     Board appeal and was “on military convalescence leave (in hospital)” for several
     weeks after the initial decision was issued. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4. The appellant
     also indicates that he has been a “physical/mental health trauma patient” since
     returning from his deployment, and that he is “currently homeless and did not
     have regular access to a computer.” Id. at 4-6. The appellant attaches a copy of
     his military orders and a Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating letter.
     Id. at 9-17, 19-20.
¶3        Aside from asserting that he has a service-connected disability, the
     appellant has not explained what relation his disability has to any medical
     condition, or explained how it prevented him from timely filing a petition for
     review.   We conclude that the appellant has not offered sufficient medical
     evidence or other corroborating evidence to support his claim.       See Chalom v.
     Department of the Navy, 86 M.S.P.R. 218, ¶ 5 (2000) (noting that in order to
     establish that an appellant’s untimely petition for review was the result of illness,
     he must: (1) identify the time period during which he suffered from the illness;
     (2) submit medical and/or corroborating evidence showing that he suffered from
     the alleged illness during that time period; and (3) explain how the illness
     prevented him from timely filing his petition or a request for an extension of
     time); Lacy v. Department of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434, 437-38 (1998).
     Additionally, the over 14-month filing delay is significant.     See Crook v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 108 M.S.P.R. 553, ¶ 6 (finding a 1-month filing delay significant),
     aff’d per curium, 301 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As such, the appellant has
     not shown that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the
     particular circumstances of this case, and thus he has not shown good cause for
                                                                                             3

     the delay in filing. 2 Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184
     (1980).
¶4         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 the removal appeal.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
           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

     2
       Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 3936, and
     its predecessor, the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA), 50 U.S.C.
     § 526(a), the “period of a servicemember’s military service may not be included in
     computing any period limited by law, regulation, or order for the bringing of any action
     or proceeding in a court, or in any board, bureau, commission, department, or other
     agency of a State (or political subdivision of a State) or the United States by or against
     the servicemember or the servicemember’s heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns.”
     50 U.S.C. § 526(a); see Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, 106 M.S.P.R. 12, ¶¶ 12-14 (2007)
     (applying the SCRA tolling provision to Board proceedings). The Board has also held
     that the relevant filing periods are automatically tolled for periods during which a
     servicemember is on active duty, and an appellant “need not show that the
     circumstances of his military service actually impaired his ability to pursue his legal
     rights in a timely fashion.”        Neighoff v. Department of Homeland Security ,
     122 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 10 (2015) (quoting Henry v. U.S. Postal Service, 69 M.S.P.R. 555,
     558 (1996)). Here, as the agency correctly observed, the documentation submitted by
     the appellant shows that his active duty deployment ended on February 15, 2017, at the
     latest—before the administrative judge issued the initial decision in this case—and the
     appellant has not argued that he has served in another active duty deployment since that
     date. PFR File, Tab 3 at 17, 20. Accordingly, the automatic tolling provision of the
     SCRA is not applicable here.
     3
       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.
                                                                                        4

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:
                              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
                                                                                    5

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
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
                                                                                      6

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).
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. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

4
   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.
                                                                                    7

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
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.