Court Opinion

ID: 9377935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 07:00:10.643558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.023843
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     STACHIE CAMPBELL,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         CH-0752-16-0336-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: March 8, 2023
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Donald Gallick, Esquire, Akron, Ohio, for the appellant.

           Suzanne B. McCabe, Esquire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained the agency’s removal action. Generally, we grant petitions such as this
     one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
       Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
     completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                         2

     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 a nd AFFIRM the initial
     decision, except as expressly MODIFIED by this Final Order to clarify the
     administrative judge’s analysis of the appellant’s disparate penalty claim.

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         The agency removed the appellant from a Postmaster position for improper
     conduct. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 13-18, Tab 9 at 31. The agency
     alleged that the appellant engaged in improper conduct when she used multiple
     agency credit cards to purchase fuel for her personal vehicle on at least eight
     occasions. IAF, Tab 1 at 6-11. The appellant filed a Board appeal alleging that
     the agency committed harmful procedural error and did not consider all of the
     evidence in its decision. Id. at 2. During the proceedings below, the appellant
     specifically alleged that the agency erred by providing incorrect information
     regarding how to contest the notice of proposed removal and substituting an
     official other than her immediate supervisor as the proposing official, and she
     further alleged that the penalty imposed exceeded the bounds of reasonableness .
     IAF, Tab 5 at 3, Tab 24 at 5-7.
¶3         Following a hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     sustaining the agency’s removal action and finding that the appellant had not
                                                                                             3

     proven her affirmative defenses. IAF, Tab 32, Initial Decision (ID) . In the initial
     decision, the administrative judge incorporated her earlier ruling that the
     appellant was estopped from disputing the charge due to an Ohio municipal
     court’s findings and judgment of the appellant’s guilt regarding the same conduct
     that formed the basis of the charged misconduct, and found the agency proved the
     charge of improper conduct and a nexus between the sustained misconduct and
     the efficiency of the service. ID at 3. The administrative judge found that the
     appellant had not proven that the agency violated her due process rights or
     committed harmful procedural error when it cited to the wrong response rights in
     the notice of proposed removal or that the deciding official’s predisposition to
     remove her prevented her from rendering an unbiased decision. ID at 4-7. The
     administrative judge further found that the appellant did not prove that the agency
     committed harmful procedural error when it appointed an official other than her
     immediate supervisor as the proposing official.             ID at 8-9.      Finally, the
     administrative judge found that the deciding official considered the appropriate
     Douglas factors, 3 that the appellant did not show that the agency treated any
     similarly-situated employees differently, and thus, that the penalty of removal
     was reasonable. ID at 10-13.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review in which she reiterates or raises
     new arguments regarding due process, harmful procedural error, and the
     reasonableness of the penalty. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 6. The
     agency has filed a response opposing the petition. PFR File, Tab 5. As set forth
     below, we find each of the appellant’s arguments to be without merit. 4

     3
       In Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981), the Board
     articulated a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to the penalty determination in
     adverse actions.
     4
       Nearly 3 years after the appellant filed her petition for review, she filed a request to
     withdraw the petition. PFR File, Tab 6, Tab 7 at 1 n.1. Pursuant to the May 11, 2018
     Delegation of Authority for the Clerk of the Board to dismiss petitions for rev iew when
     a party has indicated an intent to withdraw the petition, the Clerk of the Board issued
                                                                                             4

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The appellant is precluded from arguing that her lack of counsel during municipal
     court proceedings and the resulting conviction warrant reversing the initial
     decision.
¶5         On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge improperly
     considered her guilty plea in municipal court, which was entered without counsel
     present, thus violating her constitutional rights to counsel and due process. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 6.      To the extent the appellant contends that her guilty plea in
     municipal court does not estop her from challenging the a gency’s charged
     misconduct because her plea was obtained without counsel, she is precluded from
     raising the issue on review. Following a June 2016 telephonic status conference
     in which both parties participated, the administrative judge ruled that the
     appellant’s guilty plea and resulting conviction for petty theft involved the same
     issues as the agency’s charged misconduct, and under the doctrine of collateral
     estoppel, the appellant was precluded from challenging the charge. IAF, Tab 11
     at 2. The administrative judge’s order notified the parties that the ruling was
     final absent receipt of notice from a party challenging the ruling within 7 days of
     the order. Id. at 3.
¶6         The appellant filed a request for additional time to file an objectio n to the
     order, which the administrative judge granted, but the appellant , who was
     represented by counsel throughout the Board’s proceedings below, did not file an
     objection. IAF, Tab 14 at 3, Tab 15. In her prehearing submission, the appellant
     noted the administrative judge’s ruling but did not object to it. IAF, Tab 24 at 4.
     During the hearing, the appellant testified regarding her lack of counsel at the
     municipal court hearing but did not object to the administrative judge’s collateral
     estoppel ruling on this ground. IAF, Tab 34, Hearing Transcript (HT) at 93-94
     (testimony of the appellant).      The appellant’s failure to timely object to the

     orders directing the appellant to perfect her request for withdrawal. PFR File, Tabs 7 -8.
     The appellant did not respond. Accordingly, we have proceeded to a decision on the
     merits of her petition.
                                                                                              5

     administrative judge’s ruling regarding her guilty plea and conviction precludes
     her from raising the issue as a basis for review. See Gallegos v. Department of
     the Air Force, 121 M.S.P.R. 349, ¶ 16 (2014) (holding that the appellant’s failure
     to timely object to the administrative judge’s rulings regarding her affirmative
     defenses precluded her from raising the issue on review) . The appellant has not
     otherwise contested the administrative judge’s ruling t hat her guilty plea and
     resulting conviction for petty theft estopped her from challenging the agency’s
     charge, and we discern no reason to disturb it. 5

     The appellant has not established that the agency committed harmful procedural
     error.
¶7         On review, the appellant maintains that harmful procedural error occurred
     when the agency designated an official other than her immediate supervisor to
     propose her removal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. The administrative judge considered

     5
       In ruling that the appellant was estopped from challenging the agency’s charge, the
     administrative judge mistakenly relied on the Board’s standard for applying collateral
     estoppel to an issue previously litigated in a Federal court or proceeding. IAF, Tab 11
     at 1-2. When, as here, an appellant is found guilty of a crime under state law, the Board
     will apply that state’s collateral estoppel standards to determine the preclusive effect of
     the conviction. Graybill v. U.S. Postal Service, 782 F.2d 1567, 1571-73 (Fed. Cir.
     1986) (applying Maryland law on collateral estoppel in determining the preclusive
     effect of the appellant’s conviction in Maryland state court); Mosby v. Department of
     Housing and Urban Development, 114 M.S.P.R. 674, ¶¶ 5-6 (2010) (applying District
     of Columbia collateral estoppel standards). The issue of whether a guilty plea in a
     criminal prosecution of this nature has preclusive effect in a subsequent civil action is
     not settled law in Ohio. See, e.g., State v. C.A., 2015-Ohio-3437, 2015 WL 5011700,
     at ¶¶ 16-21 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (declining to give preclusive effect to a guilty plea in
     a subsequent proceeding to seal records); Wilcox v. Gregory, 112 Ohio App. 516, 516,
     520-21, 176 N.E.2d 523, 524, 527 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960) (stati ng that a guilty plea and
     resulting conviction of a violation of a penal traffic ordinance is not admissible in a
     civil action against the accused growing out of the same offense); but see Wloszek v.
     Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, LLP, 2004-Ohio-146, 2004 WL 64947,
     at ¶¶ 37-41 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (finding that the transcript of the appellant’s
     arraignment and plea proceeding, and her guilty plea, were sufficient to estop the
     appellant from denying liability in a malpractice action against her form er attorney).
     We need not address this issue, however, as the appellant failed to preserve an objection
     to the administrative judge’s ruling on this issue, and she has not challenged it on
     review. See Gallegos, 121 M.S.P.R. 349, ¶ 16.
                                                                                            6

     the appellant’s claim below and found that, although the substitution constituted a
     procedural error, it did not constitute harmful error. ID at 8-9. An agency’s
     adverse action may not be sustained if an employee shows harmful error in the
     application of the agency’s procedures in arriving at the decision.            5 U.S.C.
     § 7701(c)(2)(A). Harmful error cannot be presumed; an agency error is harmful
     only when the record shows that the error was likely to have caused the agency to
     reach a conclusion different from the one it would have reached in the absence or
     cure of the error. Goeke v. Department of Justice, 122 M.S.P.R. 69, ¶ 7 (2015).
     The appellant bears the burden of proving by preponderant evidence that the
     agency    committed     harmful   error   in   reaching   its   decision.     5   C.F.R.
     § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(C), (c)(1).
¶8         We agree with the administrative judge that the appellant did not establish
     her harmful error claim. Although the appellant showed that the agency did not
     follow its internal procedures for substituting a proposing official for her
     immediate supervisor, as set forth in the Employee and Labor Relations Manual
     (ELM) § 651.73, she did not show that the error was likely to have caused a
     different result. 6   IAF, Tab 24 at 20; ID at 8.      The decision to substitute an
     official other than the appellant’s immediate supervisor occurred before the
     appellant’s immediate supervisor was asked to be the proposing official or to
     consider appropriate discipline for the appellant . IAF, Tab 24 at 9; HT at 9-10
     (testimony of the immediate supervisor); ID at 8-9. A change in the proposing
     official does not constitute harmful error unless the change occurs after the
     original proposing official has reached a decision as to the approp riate penalty to

     6
       The administrative judge concluded that the agency erred when it appointed an official
     other than the appellant’s immediate supervisor as the proposing official; however, the
     agency’s ELM does not prevent substituting an official other than an employee’s
     immediate supervisor. IAF, Tab 24 at 20, ID at 8. Rather, the ELM requires the
     substitution to be made by one of three labor relations or human resources officials.
     Contrary to agency procedure, the deciding official made the substitution in this case at
     the recommendation of a human resources official who was not one of the three
     officials designated in the ELM. IAF, Tab 24 at 9, 20.
                                                                                       7

      propose.   Bross v. Department of Commerce, 389 F.3d 1212, 1218 (Fed. Cir.
      2004); Goeke, 122 M.S.P.R. 69, ¶ 16. There is no evidence that the appellant’s
      immediate supervisor had decided upon an appropriate penalty when the change
      was made, and she testified that she would have propose d the appellant’s removal
      had she been the proposing official. IAF, Tab 24 at 9; HT at 10-11 (testimony of
      the immediate supervisor); ID at 8-9.           Accordingly, we find that the
      administrative judge properly concluded that the appellant did not establish her
      affirmative defense of harmful procedural error.
¶9          The appellant’s petition also alleges that the agency either committed a due
      process violation or harmful procedural error by appointing a biased proposing
      official. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. She further alleges that the administrative judge
      failed to consider as evidence of the proposing official’s bias that the agency’s
      Office of Inspector General (OIG) caused negative publicity. Id. The appellant
      did not raise below an allegation of bias concerning the proposing official and has
      not shown that either argument is based on new and material evidence;
      accordingly, we will not consider them.     See Banks v. Department of the Air
      Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (holding that the Board generally will not
      consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a
      showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously avail able
      despite the party’s due diligence).

      The initial decision is modified to analyze the appellant’s disparate penalty claim
      consistent with Singh v. U.S. Postal Service; however, the appellant has not
      shown that the administrative judge erred in sustaining the penalty of removal.
¶10         On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in
      sustaining the deciding official’s penalty analysis. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. When,
      as here, the agency’s charge has been sustained, the Board will review an
      agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all of the
      relevant factors and exercised management discretion within tolerable limits of
      reasonableness.   Archerda v. Department of Defense, 121 M.S.P.R. 314, ¶ 25
                                                                                        8

      (2014). The Board will modify a penalty only when it finds that the agency failed
      to weigh the relevant factors or that the penalty the agency imposed c learly
      exceeded the bounds of reasonableness. Id.
¶11        The appellant appears to maintain her argument from below that it was
      unfair for the deciding official to consider an online news article as evidence of
      the notoriety of the appellant’s misconduct because the agency’s OIG sent
      information regarding the appellant’s conviction to the publication that posted the
      article. IAF, Tab 24 at 6; PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. We find that the appellant has
      shown neither a due process violation nor harmful procedural error in the
      deciding official’s consideration of the negative publicity generated from the
      online article. The record reflects that the agency’s OIG sent a press release to
      several publications regarding the appellant’s conviction , and shortly thereafter,
      one of the publications posted an online article regarding the appellant’s
      conviction. IAF, Tab 6 at 52, Tab 24 at 36. The deciding official considered the
      online article and the fact that the appellant’s conviction was publicized online—
      which generated comments from the public—as evidence of the notoriety of the
      appellant’s misconduct, even though she did not know at the time of her decision
      that it was the OIG that provided the press release to the publication posting the
      online article. IAF, Tab 1 at 16; HT at 61-62 (testimony of the deciding official).
¶12        The essential requirements of constitutional due process for a tenured public
      employee are notice of the charges against her, with an explanation of the
      evidence, and an opportunity for the employee to present her account of events.
      Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985).
      Introducing new and material information by means of ex parte communications
      to the deciding official can undermine an employee’s due process guarantee of
      notice and the opportunity to respond.       Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance
      Corporation, 179 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, when the deciding
      official made her decision, she had not received any information in addition to
      that provided to the appellant, and the appellant received notice of the online
                                                                                       9

      article and an opportunity to respond to it; accordingly, the OIG’s having
      provided the press release to the publication posting the online article did not
      violate the appellant’s due process rights.     IAF, Tab 1 at 9; HT at 61-62
      (testimony of the deciding official).
¶13         The appellant has not alleged that the OIG’s having provided the press
      release to the publication posting the online article constituted a failure on the
      agency’s part to follow its procedures; accordingly, she has not shown a
      procedural error under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(A). Moreover, the deciding official
      testified that even if the online article had not existed, she nevertheless would
      have removed the appellant; accordingly, the appellant cannot demonstrate that ,
      even assuming any error on the agency’s part, it would have resulted in a
      different outcome.    HT at 62 (testimony of the deciding official); see Goeke,
      122 M.S.P.R. 69, ¶ 7. Finally, the online article contains information about the
      appellant’s conviction not contained in the OIG’s press release, but presumably
      available as a matter of public record.   Compare IAF, Tab 6 at 52, with IAF,
      Tab 24 at 36. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the agency alone caused the
      publication to generate the article and the resulting negative publicity that the
      deciding official considered in her decision, or that considering the article was
      otherwise improper.
¶14         The appellant also alleges that the administrative judge failed to conduct a
      full disparate penalty analysis; specifically, she maintains that a particular
      employee should have been considered as a comparator. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6.
      After the issuance of the initial decision, we overruled a portion of our precedent
      and clarified the law governing disparate penalty claims in Singh v. U.S. Postal
      Service, 2022 MSPB 15, ¶¶ 10-18. Accordingly, we modify the initial decision to
      analyze the appellant’s disparate penalty claim consistent with Singh.
¶15         Among the factors an agency should consider in setting the penalty for
      misconduct is the “consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other
      employees for the same or similar offenses.”       Id., ¶ 10 (quoting Douglas v.
                                                                                        10

      Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305 (1981)). In assessing the agency’s
      penalty determination, the relevant inquiry is whether the agency knowingly and
      unjustifiably treated employees who engaged in the same or similar offenses
      differently. Id., ¶¶ 14-17; see Facer v. Department of the Air Force, 836 F.2d
      535, 539 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (providing that a person does not have a legally
      protected interest in the evenness of a misconduct penalty assessed on him
      compared to that assessed on others unless employees are knowingly treated
      differently “in a way not justified by the facts, and intentionally for reasons other
      than the efficiency of the service.”). The universe of potential comparators will
      vary from case to case, but it should be limited to those employees whose
      misconduct or other circumstances closely resemble those of the appellant.
      Singh, 2022 MSPB 15, ¶ 13.
¶16         Although the administrative judge did not have the benefit of Singh when
      she issued the initial decision, she properly found that the particular employee in
      question was not similarly situated to the appellant.       The comparator was a
      noncareer, nonsupervisory employee, whereas the appellant was a supervisor and
      could be held to a higher standard of conduct than a nonsupervisor. IAF, Tab 25
      at 4-5; HT at 57-59 (testimony of the deciding official); see Edwards v. U.S.
      Postal Service, 116 M.S.P.R. 173, ¶ 14 (2010) (noting that agencies are entitled
      to hold supervisors to a higher standard than nonsupervisors because they occupy
      positions of trust and responsibility). Although the nature of the misconduct was
      similar, as both the comparator and the appellant were charged with improper
      misconduct for use of an agency credit card to purchase personal items, the other
      employee’s misconduct involved using an agency card on only one date, whereas
      the appellant’s misconduct included using an agency card on at least eight dates,
      resulting in a theft conviction. Compare IAF, Tab 1 at 6-9, with IAF, Tab 25
      at 4-5. The deciding official also considered the consistency of the appellant’s
      penalty with other penalties but was unaware of the other employee’s discipline
      when she issued her decision. HT at 52-58 (testimony of the deciding official).
                                                                                           11

      Given these factors, we conclude that there is not enough similarity between the
      appellant and the other employee to establish that they are similarly situated.
¶17         We find the appellant’s other arguments regarding the reasonableness of the
      penalty unpersuasive. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. The record reflects that the deciding
      official considered the appellant’s years of service, lack of prior disciplinary
      history, and work record but did not find that they outweighed the seriousness of
      the offense.    IAF, Tab 1 at 15-16; HT at 62-63 (testimony of the deciding
      official). The deciding official considered all relevant factors in her decision;
      accordingly, we find that the agency exercised management discretion within
      tolerable limits of reasonableness in removing the appellant, and we affirm the
      administrative judge’s initial decision.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
            The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
      Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.     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 an d
      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.

      7
        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.
                                                                                        12

      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
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
                                                                                13

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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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:
                                                                                      14

                            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. 8    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).

8
   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 compet ent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                15

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