Court Opinion

ID: 9373396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:44.623554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.335223
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     BRANDON M. GOINS,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         SF-3330-21-0214-X-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: September 23, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Brandon M. Goins, APO, AP, pro se.

           Chad H. Arnesen, Esquire and Harrison Spencer, APO, AP, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         In a November 8, 2021 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     found the agency in noncompliance with the Board’s August 9, 2021 final
     decision, which ordered the agency to reconstruct the hiring process for a position
     for which it had denied the appellant the opportunity to compete in violation of

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     his veterans’ preference rights under the Veteran’s Employment Opportunities
     Act of 1998 (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1). Goins v. Department of the Army,
     MSPB Docket No. SF-3330-21-0214-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 15, Initial
     Decision; Goins v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. SF-3330-21-0214-
     C-1, Compliance File, Tab 11, Compliance Initial Decision (CID).            For the
     reasons discussed below, we find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the
     petition for enforcement.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2           In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found that,
     although the agency attempted to reconstruct the hiring process, it did not provide
     evidence indicating precisely what steps it had taken to comply with the Board’s
     order, including whether it had removed the improperly appointed selectee from
     the subject position during the reconstruction, applied the same criteria to the
     appellant’s application that it applied to the other candidates , and/or engaged in
     more than a merely hypothetical reconstruction process. CID at 3. Accordingly,
     he granted the appellant’s petition for enforcement and again o rdered the agency
     to reconstruct the selection process for the position, consistent with the
     requirements set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1), to include taking the improperly
     appointed selectee out of the position during the reconstruction process. CID
     at 4.
¶3           The administrative judge informed the agency that, if it decided to take the
     ordered actions, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board a narrative statement and
     evidence establishing compliance.      CID at 4-5.   The administrative judge also
     informed the parties that they could file a petition for review if they disagreed
     with the compliance initial decision.       CID at 5.     Neither party filed any
     submission with the Clerk of the Board within the time limit set forth in 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114.       Accordingly, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)-(c), the
     administrative judge’s findings of noncompliance have become final, and the
                                                                                     3

     appellant’s petition for enforcement has been referred to the Board for a final
     decision on issues of compliance.     Goins v. Department of the Army, MSPB
     Docket No. SF-3330-21-0214-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1.
¶4        On December 21, 2021, the Board issued an acknowledgment order
     directing the agency to submit evidence showing that it ha d complied with all
     actions identified in the compliance initial decision.   CRF, Tab 1 at 3.    In a
     January 4, 2022 response, the agency stated and provided evidence reflecting that
     it reconstructed the hiring process a second time but again did not select the
     appellant for the position. CRF, Tab 2. The agency’s evidence included copies
     of the resumes of each candidate considered, the scoring matrix used by the
     reconstructed hiring board to rate the candidates, the agency’s position
     description, and a memorandum signed by the hiring official outlining the steps
     that were taken, including removal of the improperly appointed selectee from the
     position during the reconstruction. Id.
¶5        On January 10, 2022, the appellant responded to the agency’s submission.
     CRF, Tab 3. He alleged that the agency did not afford him an opportunity to
     compete in the second hiring reconstruction and that it was unclear whether the
     agency’s hiring process complied with Department of Defense Instruction (DODI)
     1400.25, Volume 1232, entitled, “DoD Civilian Personnel Management System:
     Employment of Family Members in Foreign Areas,” as no information was
     provided by the agency as to whether the improperly appointed selectee qualified
     for veterans’ preference, military spouse preference, or fami ly member
     preference.   Id. at 4.   He also alleged that the agency had not provided any
     supporting documentation to show that he was ever placed on a missed
     consideration list, as the agency had previously indicated. Id.; IAF, Tab 5. The
     agency did not respond.
¶6        On March 11, 2022, the Board ordered the agency to respond to the
     appellant’s allegations of noncompliance, as well as attest to its compliance with
     the administrative judge’s orders to properly reconstruct its hiring process that
                                                                                         4

     violated the appellant’s veterans’ preference rights under VEOA. CRF, Tab 4. In
     an April 1, 2022 response, the agency averred, and provided evidence showing,
     that it reconstructed the hiring process a third time. CRF, Tab 6 at 6, 9, 45. The
     agency stated that, in this third reconstruction, it properly applied and considered
     the preference entitlements of each candidate, to include the appellant’s family
     member preference under DODI 1400.25, Volume 1232, and both the appellant’s
     and original selectee’s veterans’ preference rights.               Id.   Although the
     reconstruction did not result in the appellant’s selection, the agency stated that it
     had provided the appellant a lawful hiring process consistent with law and was
     now in compliance with the administrative judge’s orders. Id. at 8. The agency
     further averred that it had placed the appellant on a missed consideration list as of
     March 30, 2021, as an interim remedy 2 for the agency’s error in determining the
     appellant unqualified for the position at issue. Id. at 7-8, 61.
¶7         On April 7, 2022, the appellant responded to the agency’s submission,
     challenging various aspects of the hiring reconstruction and requesting lost wages
     and sanctions against the agency. CRF, Tab 7. The agency did not respond.

                                         ANALYSIS
¶8         The Board has jurisdiction to consider an appellant’s claim of agency
     noncompliance with a Board decision. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the
     Arts, 726 F.2d 730, 733 (Fed.Cir.1984); Weed v. Social Security Administration,
     110 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 5 (2009). The Board’s authority to remedy noncompliance is
     broad and far-reaching and functions to ensure that employees or applicants for
     employment are returned to the status quo ante or the position that they would
     have been in had the unlawful agency action not occurred. Kerr, 726 F.2d at 733;
     Weed, 110 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 5. It is the agency's burden to prove by preponderant

     2
        The Board did not order the appellant’s placement on the agency’s missed
     consideration list as an interim remedy. Instead, this action was both proposed, and
     initiated, by the agency. A copy the agency’s missed consideration log, dated March
     29, 2022, was provided with the agency’s April 1, 2022 response. CRF, Tab 6 at 61.
                                                                                        5

      evidence that it has fully complied with a final Board decision.             Weed,
      110 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 5. Thus, in the instant case, the agency must show that it
      properly reconstructed the hiring process for the position at issue.
¶9          Under VEOA, an appellant whose veterans’ preference rights were violated
      with respect to a selection process is entitled to a selection process consistent
      with law. Weed, 110 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 6. To properly reconstruct a selection, an
      agency must conduct an actual selection process based on the same circu mstances
      surrounding the original faulty selection.    Washburn v. Department of the Air
      Force, 119 M.S.P.R. 265, ¶ 14 (2013). This includes taking the original selectee
      out of the position, conducting and evaluating an interview of the appellant that
      can be meaningfully compared with the original selectee’s interview, and filling
      the same number of vacancies as before. Id.
¶10         Here, the agency argues that it has now properly reconstructed the hiring
      process and has provided evidence showing that it removed the original selectee
      from the position for the reconstruction, reinterviewed the appellant with a hiring
      board that included one of the same members of the original hiring board, and
      filled the same number of vacancies.       CRF, Tab 6.      In support, the agency
      provided: (1) a Certificate of Eligibles, dated October 7, 2021, containing the
      names and preference entitlements for each candidate, including the appellant and
      the original selectee, id. at 39; (2) a Candidate Scoring Matrix, containing the
      reconstructed hiring board’s ratings for each candidate and identifying the
      original selectee as its fourth overall pick and the appellant as its fifth overall
      pick, id. at 63; and (3) copies of the appellant’s and original selectee’s resumes,
      id. at 64-82.
¶11         In addition, the agency provided the hiring official’s March 25, 2022
      affidavit in which he attested that “[u]pon completion of the reconstructed hiring
      process, [he] affirmed that [the original selectee] should be recommended for the
      [position at issue]” for the following reasons:        (1) the original selectee’s
      pre-interview scores were higher than the appellant’s scores; (2) both the original
                                                                                           6

      selectee and the appellant were entitled to veterans’ preference; (3) upon
      comparison of their resumes, the original selectee’s prior work experience was a
      better fit for the position compared to the appellant’s “due to skill set s required to
      operate in Global Command Support System – Army programs and fulfilling
      related Property Book Office duties and responsibilities”; (4) the hiring board had
      determined that the original selectee was more qualified for the position; and
      (5) the original selectee hypothetically would have accepted the position at issue,
      as demonstrated by the fact that the original selectee accepted the position. Id.
      at 45. Also attached to the hiring official’s affidavit were four “Memorandum
      [sic] for Record,” including three documenting his directives to the reconstructed
      hiring board and one signed by a member of the hiring board documenting the
      hiring board’s reconstructed interview of the appellant on March 22, 2022, and its
      unanimous post-interview recommendation that, based on its review of pre- and
      post-interview documentation and candidate scores, the hiring official should hire
      the original selectee. Id. at 47-50.
¶12         In his response to the agency’s compliance submission, however, the
      appellant argues that the agency did not provide him a lawful selection process.
      For the reasons that follow, we find no merit to the appellant’s arguments.
¶13         First, the appellant argues that the agency did not provide him a lawful
      selection process because he was not asked the same interview questions as the
      original selectee during his reconstructed interview. CRF, Tab 7 at 5. Although
      the Board ordered the agency to submit evidence showing that the appellant was
      asked the same interview questions as the original selectee during his
      reconstructed interview, CRF, Tab 4 at 5, it is not necessary to a lawful
      reconstructed selection process as long as the agency can otherwise show that it
      conducted and evaluated an interview of the appellant that is meaningfully
      comparable with the original selectee’s interview. See Washburn, 119 M.S.P.R.
      265, ¶ 14.    Here, the agency asserts that, although no record of the exact
      questions asked by the original board was retained, the hiring official directed the
                                                                                           7

      reconstructed hiring board to make all efforts to ask the appellant the same
      interview questions as the original selectee.    CRF, Tab 6 at 43-44. To that end,
      the reconstructed hiring board member who served on the original hiring board
      advised the other members regarding the original hiring board’s interview
      practices, subject matter of interview questions asked, and the reasons for its
      decision to hire the original selectee.    Id. at 12, 44, 50.    The agency further
      asserts that the appellant was asked questions of the same subject matter and that
      his reconstructed interview lasted roughly the same duration o f time as the
      selected candidate’s interview. Id. at 11. In light of these circumstances, we find
      that the agency satisfied its obligation to conduct and evaluate an interview of the
      appellant that was meaningfully comparable with the original selectee’s
      interview, even though it was unable to ask the appellant identical questions to
      those asked during the original hiring process. 3 See Washburn, 119 M.S.P.R. 265,
      ¶ 14.
¶14           Next, the appellant argues that the reconstructed selection process was not
      lawful because his status as a preference eligible under VEOA and his family
      member preference should have placed him “at the top of the lis ting for
      consideration” by the agency. CRF, Tab 7 at 4. However, the appellant’s belief
      that he should have been ranked higher than the other applicants does not
      establish that the agency failed to provide him a lawful selection process. The
      agency has provided as evidence a copy of the full, ranked list of candidates that
      it considered during the reconstruction, accompanied by the candidates’ scores
      and preference entitlements. CRF, Tab 6 at 39, 43-44, 63. This evidence shows

      3
        The appellant claims that the agency’s failure to maintain the original selectee’s
      interview questions is a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, which requires employers to
      maintain personnel or employment records related to hiring for 1 year. CRF, Tab 7
      at 6. Assuming arguendo that 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 is applicable here, the agency’s
      compliance (or lack thereof) with this records management provision does not affect the
      dispositive issue before us of whether the agency provided the appellant a lawful
      selection process.
                                                                                           8

      that both the appellant and the selected candidate are entitled to veterans’
      preference, as they are both preference eligibles, 4 and that the agency considered
      the preference entitlements of each candidate during the reconstruction, including
      the appellant’s family member preference. CRF, Tab 6 at 6, 39, 45. Accordingly,
      we find that the agency properly applied and considered the appellant’s veterans’
      preference and family member preference in reconstructing the hiring process.
¶15         The appellant also appears to argue that the recon structed hiring process
      was not lawful because the agency may not have considered his eligibility for
      Schedule A hiring or reinstatement under 5 C.F.R. § 315.401. CRF, Tab 7 at 4.
      However, Schedule A hiring may be used only in a noncompetitive hiring
      process; therefore, it was unavailable in the reconstructed hiring process here for
      a competitive service position. See 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u); CRF, Tab 6 at 27. In
      addition, while “an agency may appoint by reinstatement to a competitive service
      position   a   person    who    previously    was    employed     under    career   or
      career-conditional appointment (or equivalent),” reinstatemen t eligibility is not a
      guarantee that an employee will be considered for a specific position or be
      appointed to it. See 5 C.F.R. § 315.401(a) (emphasis added); see also Hicks v.
      Department of the Navy, 33 M.S.P.R. 511 (1987) (the Board lacks jurisdiction
      over an agency’s decision not to reinstate an employee pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
      § 315.401). Accordingly, the appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate any error
      in the reconstructed hiring process.
¶16         Finally, the appellant argues, without evidence, that it is his belief that the
      agency never conducted interviews of the candidates during the original hiring
      process. CRF, Tab 7 at 6. However, the agency’s evidence reflects otherwise. In
      particular, the agency provided a scoring matrix showing the dates that the

      4
        As both the selected candidate and the appellant are preference eligibles under VEOA,
      the agency was not required to seek preapproval from the Office of Personnel
      Management before passing over the appellant, regardless of any compensable
      service-connected disability he may have. See 5 U.S.C. § 3318(c)(1)-(2).
                                                                                           9

      original hiring board conducted these interviews and its interview remarks for
      each candidate. Id. at 62-63; CRF, Tab 2 at 9. The agency’s evidence also shows
      that one of the three members of the reconstructed hiring board served on the
      original hiring board and advised the other members regarding the original hiring
      board’s interview practices, subject matter of interview questions asked, and the
      reasons for its decision to hire the original selectee. 5 CRF, Tab 6 at 12, 44, 50.
      Therefore, we find that the agency’s evidence outweighs the appellant’s cursory
      and unsupported allegation and provides no basis to find that the agency did not
      conduct interviews during the original hiring process or otherwise provide him a
      lawful reconstructed selection process.
¶17         We have considered the appellant’s myriad other challenges to the agency’s
      compliance and find them unpersuasive.
¶18         In consideration of the agency’s evidence of compliance, and all arguments
      put forward by the appellant, we find that the agency’s recon struction of its hiring
      process is consistent with law and provided the appellant an opportunity to
      compete for the position at issue, with his veterans’ preference rights and family
      member preference properly applied and considered.                 CRF, Tabs 6-7.
      Specifically, we find that the agency’s reconstruction was based on the same
      circumstances surrounding the original faulty selection and involved taking the
      original selectee out of the position, conducting and evaluating an interview of
      the appellant that was meaningfully comparable with the original selectee’s
      interview, and filling the same number of vacancies.            See Washburn, 119
      M.S.P.R. 265, ¶ 14.     As the lawful reconstructed hiring process demonstrated
      that, in the absence of a violation of the appellant’s veterans’ preference rights,
      the agency would not have selected him for the position because he was not the

      5
       As one of the members of the original hiring board served on the reconstructed hiring
      board, only the appellant was required to be interviewed during the reconstruction. The
      agency was not required to re-interview the other candidates. See Phillips v.
      Department of the Navy, 114 M.S.P.R. 19, ¶ 18 (2010).
                                                                                           10

      best candidate, he has not suffered any lost wages or benefits that would entitle
      him to an award under 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a). See Lodge v. Department of the
      Treasury, 107 M.S.P.R. 22, ¶ 15 (2007). Accordingly, his requests to be issued
      such an award are denied. 6
¶19         In light of the foregoing, we find that the agency is now in compliance and
      dismiss the appellant’s petition for enforcement. This is the final decision of the
      Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding.           Title 5 of the
      Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
            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

      6
        We additionally deny the appellant’s request for sanctions or other “follo w-up
      action[s].” CRF, Tab 7 at 7. The Board’s ability to impose sanctions is a means to
      enforce compliance. Eikenberry v. Department of the Interior, 39 M.S.P.R. 119, 121
      (1988). Here, the agency has submitted evidence of compliance, and therefore, it would
      be inappropriate for the Board to impose sanctions at this time. Id.
      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.
                                                                                       11

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
                                                                                 12

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 resp ective
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 Employm ent
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
                                                                                     13

      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).
      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:

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 ju dicial 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.
                                                                              14

                             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 li nk below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

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