Court Opinion

ID: 9895188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 13:00:27.043207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:37.014570
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CLARENCE EDWARD BALDWIN,                        DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-315H-20-0077-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,                       DATE: November 3, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Clarence Edward Baldwin , Temple Hills, Maryland, pro se.

           Pamela Simmonds , Esquire, and James Christopher Bush , Esquire,
             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
     dismissed his involuntary resignation appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On petition
     for review, the appellant argues, among other things, that he is an “employee”
     under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A) with Board appeal rights by virtue of his prior
     service with another agency and his participation in the Civil Service Retirement

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     System. He challenges the accuracy of some of the Standard Forms 50 in the
     record and argues the agency erred by not using chapter 75 procedures in
     attempting to remove him before he resigned.             He also argues that the
     administrative judge erred in not allowing him to seek discovery on the
     jurisdictional issue. 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 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 and AFFIRM the initial decision,
     which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2         The administrative judge correctly found that the appellant’s tenure in his
     prior position at the Small Business Administration (SBA) cannot be considered
     towards satisfying the probationary period in the position at issue in this appeal
     because there was a break in service of 354 days between the date he left his SBA
     position on March 1, 2016, and his appointment to the position at issue on
     February 19, 2017. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 28, Initial Decision at 7; see
     Hurston v. Department of the Army, 113 M.S.P.R. 34, ¶ 9 (2010) (finding that an
     individual who has not served a full year under his appointment can show that he
     has completed the probationary period, and so is no longer a probationer, by
     tacking on prior service if:     (1) the prior service was rendered immediately
     preceding the probationary appointment; (2) it was performed in the same agency;
                                                                                            3

     (3) it was performed in the same line of work; and (4) it was completed with no
     more than one break in service of less than 30 days); 5 C.F.R. § 315.802(b).
     Similarly, given that the appellant served in the position at issue in this appeal for
     334 days, from February 19, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and had a break in service
     of more than one day between his separation from the SBA and his appointment
     with the agency, he lacks the one year of current continuous service by which he
     might establish that he is an “employee” with Board appeal rights. IAF, Tab 16 at
     12, 26; see Hurston, 113 M.S.P.R. 34, ¶ 9. Regarding the appellant’s claim that
     his status in the Civil Service Retirement System makes him an employee with
     Board appeal rights, his status in a retirement system is not relevant to whether he
     is an “employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A). 2
¶3         Concerning the appellant’s contentions regarding discovery, the Board will
     not reverse an administrative judge’s rulings on discovery matters absent an abuse
     of discretion. Wagner v. Environmental Protection Agency, 54 M.S.P.R. 447, 452
     (1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Table). The administrative judge
     correctly observed that the appellant failed to identify any discovery he sought
     which could lead to potentially relevant evidence on the issue of his status as an
     “employee” with Board appeal rights. IAF, Tab 6 at 1-2. Similarly, the appellant
     fails to explain on review why anything he sought in discovery would have

     2
       The appellant has also not shown how any purported errors in the Standard Forms 50
     in the record are relevant to whether he met the definition of an “employee” with Board
     appeal rights. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A). Because he did not meet the statutory
     definition of an “employee,” the appellant was not entitled to chapter 75 procedures.
     5 U.S.C. §§ 7511(a)(1), 7513; Sosa v. Department of Defense, 102 M.S.P.R. 252, ¶ 6
     (2006). More than 2 years after the close of the record on petition for review, the
     appellant filed a motion for leave to file additional evidence, asserting that the agency
     prepared a fraudulent Standard Form 50 and committed perjury. Petition for Review
     File, Tab 12. The appellant has not explained his argument further nor shown that the
     evidence upon which it is based was not available prior to the close of the record; thus,
     having failed to show the nature of or need for this additional pleading, his motion is
     denied. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5); see Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R.
     345, 349 (1980) (stating that the Board will not grant a petition for review based on new
     evidence absent a showing that it is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different
     from that of the initial decision).
                                                                                      4

changed the result in his appeal. See Russell v. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 110 M.S.P.R. 557, ¶ 15 (finding that the appellant must explain how
any information he sought would have changed the result of the appeal in order to
establish an abuse of the administrative judge’s discretion). Thus, the appellant
failed to show that the administrative judge abused her discretion in denying him
discovery on the jurisdictional issue. Wagner, 54 M.S.P.R. at 452.

                         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
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

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.
                                                                                         5

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
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
                                                                                  6

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:
                         Office of Federal Operations
                  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                              131 M Street, N.E.
                                Suite 5SW12G
                          Washington, D.C. 20507
                                                                                      7

      (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
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.

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.
                                                                              8

      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.