Court Opinion

ID: 9963437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 16:00:47.458823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:51.037207
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

WILLIAM C. SMITH,                               DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        DC-0752-18-0003-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: April 24, 2024
  SECURITY,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Kevin Crayon, Jr. , Esquire, Kennesaw, Georgia, for the appellant.

      Laura T. Geigel , Esquire, and Sarah I. Grafton , Esquire, Arlington,
        Virginia, for the agency.

      Michael W. Gaches , Esquire, Springfield, Virginia, for the agency.

      Steven J. Lewengrub , Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
sustained his removal. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the
following circumstances:      the initial decision contains erroneous findings 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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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. For the reasons set forth below, we
VACATE the initial decision and DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                 BACKGROUND
      The Department of Homeland Security removed the appellant from the
excepted service position of SV-0301-J Supervisory Program Specialist with the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), effective February 20, 2017.
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 34-44.           The appellant filed an equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint with the agency’s Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties and, on September 1, 2017, the agency issued a Final
Agency Decision finding no discrimination. IAF, Tab 1 at 28-36. This appeal
followed.   The administrative judge adjudicated the appeal on the merits and
affirmed the agency’s action. IAF, Tab 32. The appellant filed a petition for
review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.
      Notwithstanding the administrative judge’s adjudication of the merits of the
appeal, the issue of jurisdiction is always before the Board and may be raised at
any time in a Board proceeding. Ney v. Department of Commerce, 115 M.S.P.R.
204, ¶ 7 (2010). The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it
                                                                                    3

has been given jurisdiction by law, rule or regulation.       See Maddox v. Merit
Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
      Here, because the appellant worked for the TSA, the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) applies to this case.             See Wilson v.
Department of Homeland Security, 122 M.S.P.R. 262, ¶ 3 (2015).             Under the
ATSA, TSA employees are covered by the personnel management system that is
applicable to employees of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), except to
the extent that the Administrator for TSA modifies that system. Id. Pursuant to
the FAA system, individuals who meet the definition of an “employee” under
5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1) generally are entitled to appeal adverse actions to the
Board. Id.
      Under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii), an individual in the excepted service
(other than a preference eligible) who has completed 2 years of current
continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under
other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less is an employee with
Board appeal rights. See 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(c)(5). Similarly, under the agency’s
regulations, TSA Handbook to Management Directive 1100.75–3, Addressing
Unacceptable    Performance    and   Conduct,   § J(2)(b)    (Feb.   12,   2014),   a
Non-Transportation Security Officer (TSO) employee who is not preference
eligible may appeal to the Board only if he has at least 2 years of current
continuous service in the same or similar position. IAF, Tab 8 at 75, 96.
      The appellant, a non-TSO who is not preference eligible, was promoted to
the excepted service SV-0301-J Supervisory Program Specialist position from a
SV-0343-I Program Analyst position, effective July 26, 2015. IAF, Tab 8 at 35;
PFR File, Tab 5 at 30. He was indefinitely suspended effective June 29, 2016,
IAF, Tab 8 at 10, and his removal was effected on February 20, 2017, IAF, Tab 6
at 34.       Therefore, even if all of the time between June 29, 2016,
and February 20, 2017, when the appellant was in a nonpay status, is credited to
his completion of the required 2 years in the same or similar position, he lacks
                                                                                        4

2 years of current continuous service in the Supervisory Program Specialist
position. Because the record failed to establish whether the Program Analyst and
Supervisory Program Specialist positions are the same or similar, the Board was
unable to determine whether the appellant has the 2 years of current continuous
service in the same or similar position necessary to establish Board jurisdiction
over his appeal. Thus, it ordered the parties to submit evidence and argument on
the issue of whether the appellant has 2 years of current continuous service in the
same or similar position.       PFR File, Tab 4.        The parties have responded.
PFR File, Tabs 5, 8.

                                      ANALYSIS
The appellant has not made a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction .
      Because, as noted, the appellant did not have 2 years of current continuous
service in the Supervisory Program Specialist position, the Board’s jurisdiction
over this appeal turns on whether the Program Analyst 2 and Supervisory Program
Specialist positions are the same or similar for purposes of § 7511(a)(1). If they
are not, then the appellant is not an employee under § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii) and he
2
  It appears that the appellant had more than 2 years of current continuous service in the
Program Analyst position when he applied for and accepted promotion to the
Supervisory Program Specialist position and likely had Board appeal rights in the
Program Analyst position under § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii) when he was promoted. PFR File,
Tab 5 at 13, Tab 8 at 17. In Exum v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 62 M.S.P.R. 344,
349-50 (1994), the Board held that, when an employee moves to a new position within
the same agency and forfeits his Board appeal rights as a result, the agency must inform
the employee of the effect the move will have on his appeal rights; if the employee was
unaware of the loss of Board appeal rights that would result from accepting the new
position and he would not have accepted the new position had he known of the loss of
appeal rights, he is deemed not to have accepted the new appointment and to have
retained the rights incident to his former appointment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit has specifically disapproved of the Exum rule for intra-agency
transfers, and has held that an agency’s failure to inform an employee of the
consequences of a voluntary transfer cannot confer appeal rights on an employee in a
position which has no appeal rights by statute. Williams v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 892 F.3d 1156, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Applying Williams, we find that the
agency had no duty to inform the appellant that his promotion to the Supervisory
Program Specialist position could cause him to lose his Board appeal rights, and its
failure to so inform the appellant cannot confer appeal rights under § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii).
                                                                                 5

may not appeal his removal to the Board. Alternatively, if the positions are the
same or similar, then the appellant qualifies as an employee under subsection (C)
(ii) and establishes his right of appeal. See Van Wersch v. Department of Health
& Human Services, 197 F.3d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
      The regulations implementing 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, subchapter II, define
“similar positions” as “positions in which the duties performed are similar in
nature and character and require substantially the same or similar qualifications,
so that the incumbent could be interchanged between the positions without
significant training or undue interruption to the work.”     5 C.F.R. § 752.402.
Moreover, positions may be deemed “similar” if they are in the “same line of
work,” which has been interpreted as involving “related or comparable work that
requires the same or similar skills.”   Mathis v. U.S. Postal Service, 865 F.2d
232, 234 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Our reviewing court has interpreted such language to
mean that positions are similar “if experience in [one] position demonstrates the
knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the work of the other job.”
Coradeschi v. Department of Homeland Security, 439 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
2006); accord Mathis, 865 F.2d at 234; Spillers v. U.S. Postal Service,
65 M.S.P.R. 22, 26 (1994). In conducting this analysis, the Board must focus on
the employee’s actual duties and the work actually performed.        Maibaum v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 116 M.S.P.R. 234, ¶ 15 (2011). In determining
whether positions are the “same or similar,” a careful job analysis of the two
positions in question, not the job titles, must be made.    Shobe v. U.S. Postal
Service, 5 M.S.P.R. 466, 471 (1981). The Board will consider the totality of the
circumstances in making its determination.       Pagan v. U.S. Postal Service,
111 M.S.P.R. 212, ¶ 6 (2009).
      In his response to the Show Cause Order, the appellant asserts that the
positions in question are the same or similar.    In support of his assertion, he
submits an affidavit comparing his duties as a Program Analyst documenting the
EEO process and his duties as a Supervisory Program Specialist documenting the
                                                                                 6

“Redress” process, and states that he had prior supervisory experience and would
not have been selected if the two positions were not similar. PFR File, Tab 5
at 13-16. He contends that there was no meaningful difference in the supervisory
duties of the positions because his Program Analyst position involved team
leadership roles.   Id. at 16.   He also submits the following:      excerpts from
Position Classification Standards guidance highlighting the definition of the term
“series,” id. at 17-19; his application for the Supervisory Program Specialist
position, which emphasized his prior supervisory experience, id. at 20-24; a
Salary Increase Justification form, id. at 25; excerpts from the Handbook of
Occupational Groups and Families, describing series 0343 and 0301, id. at 26-29;
a 2015 appraisal form for the Program Analyst position, id. at 30-38; and a 2016
appraisal form for the Supervisory Program Specialist position, id. at 39-49.
       The Program Analyst position is in the 0343 series.      The Handbook of
Occupational Groups and Families, issued by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and dated December 2018, describes the 0343 Management
and Program Analysis series as follows:
       This series covers positions that primarily serve as analysts and
       advisors to management on the evaluation of the effectiveness of
       government programs and operations or the productivity and
       efficiency of the management of Federal agencies or both. Positions
       in this series require knowledge of: the substantive nature of agency
       programs and activities; agency missions, policies, and objectives;
       management principles and processes; and the analytical and
       evaluative methods and techniques for assessing program
       development      or    execution  and     improving     organizational
       effectiveness and efficiency.     Some positions also require an
       understanding of basic budgetary and financial management
       principles and techniques as they relate to long range planning of
       programs and objectives. The work requires skill in: application of
       fact-finding and investigative techniques; oral and written
       communications; and development of presentations and reports.
Id. at 29.
                                                                                  7

       The Supervisory Program Specialist position is in the 0301 series. OPM’s
Handbook describes the 0301 Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series
as follows:
       This series covers positions the duties of which are to perform,
       supervise, or manage two-grade interval administrative or program
       work for which no other series is appropriate. The work requires
       analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and knowledge of a
       substantial body of administrative or program principles, concepts,
       policies, and objectives.
Id. at 28.
       OPM’s Handbook thus describes the two series very differently.
The appellant argues, however, that because both the Program Analyst and
Supervisory Program Specialist positions are in the “300 series,” they are similar.
However, the appellant’s evidence does not support that assertion. Classification
standards define “series” as a subdivision of an occupational group consisting of
positions similar as to specialized line of work and qualification requirements.
Id. at 18. Those standards define “occupational group” as a major subdivision of
the General Schedule, embracing a group of associated or related occupations;
e.g., the Accounting and Budget Group, GS−500; the Engineering and
Architecture Group, GS−800; the General Administrative, Clerical, and Office
Services Group, GS−300.        Id.   Thus, although the Program Analyst and
Supervisory Program Specialist are in the same 300 “occupational group,”
contrary to the appellant’s assertion, they are not in the same series.
Therefore, although the appellant’s submissions show that the Program Analyst
and Supervisory Program Specialist positions may be “associated or related,”
those submissions do not constitute a nonfrivolous allegation that they are
“similar.”
       A comparison of the appellant’s 2015 appraisal form for the Program
Analyst position, id. at 30-38, and his 2016 appraisal form for the Supervisory
Program Specialist position, id. at 39-49, shows that the Program Analyst position
                                                                                8

is in the I Band, has no requirement for a security clearance, and has six Core
Competencies as follows:
         1. Accomplishes high volumes of work with daily and long term
         priorities. Shifts among job tasks with competing priorities.
         Operates within project deadlines;
         2. Welcomes change and new information, ideas, and strategies.
         Adapts work methods in response to new information, unexpected
         obstacles, and changing conditions. Adjusts rapidly to new
         situations warranting attention and resolution.       Develops
         contingency plans to ensure objectives can be met.
         3. Applies policies, directives, and regulations that relate to TSA
         operations and programs when making decisions. Ensures that
         activities, services, or products reflect organizational goals and
         objectives. Adjusts priorities to respond to pressing and changing
         needs. Adapts work methods in response to new information and
         changing conditions.
         4. Identifies the existence of problems that impede accomplishing
         tasks. Researches the cause of problems and offers a variety of
         solutions to resolve problems. Explores new ways to accomplish
         tasks. Implements solutions to problems to ensure completion of
         affected tasks.
         5. Listens actively and attends to non-verbal cues when
         communicating with others. Provides information on products,
         services, resources, or opportunities, as applicable. Explains,
         defends, or justifies decisions, recommendations, and findings.
         Discusses results, problems, plans, suggestions, terms, or
         conditions with others. Persuades others to take a particular
         course of action or to accept findings and recommendations. Acts
         effectively as a liaison between work unit and customers.
         Prepares reports, briefs, and studies. Explains technical or other
         complex information.
         6. Uses a variety of job-specific software systems and databases.
         Verifies the accuracy of the data captured and transcribed.
         Processes forms, records, documents, or other materials.
         Collects, compiles, organizes, and transfers electronic
         information. Reviews reports, documents, or other materials to
         verify correctness, compliance, or authenticity. Searches for and
         extracts information from data repositories, file servers, Internet,
         reports, and publications. Remains current on developments,
         technologies, and work practices. Acquires and develops new job
                                                                                 9

          skills and knowledge.     Applies and maintains specialized job
          skills and knowledge.
Id. at 31-33.
      The Supervisory Program Specialist position, also referred to as a Redress
Operations Manager, is in the J Band, requires a secret security clearance,
IAF, Tab 8 at 23-29, and the performance plan for the position has seven core
competencies, PFR File, Tab 5 at 41-45. Of these core competencies, the first
four are identical to those of the Program Analyst position. The fifth is similar.
However, it also provides that the incumbent explains and defends management's
policies or practices. Id. at 43.
      The sixth and seventh core competencies for the Supervisory Program
Specialist are wholly different from the core competencies for the Program
Analyst position. The sixth provides as follows:
          Formulates effective strategies consistent with the agency's
          organizational goals and objectives.         Determines resource
          requirements based on program objectives and operational needs.
          Uses metrics and other data as part of the evaluative process to
          identify problems and propose solutions.         Adheres to, and
          integrates knowledge of, all relevant directives and regulations to
          address issues and resolve problems. Reviews and analyzes
          programs, operational results, and policy to identify potential
          areas of improvement.
Id. at 44. The seventh core competency provides as follows:
          Creates a positive work environment by encouraging mutual
          respect, communication, and innovation and manages conflict
          constructively. Organizes and facilitates teams skillfully to
          accomplish mutual goals. Administers performance management
          responsibilities including completion of performance plans and
          ratings, provision of meaningful feedback, and taking appropriate
          measures to address performance and conduct issues. Involves
          team members in decisions and problem solving. Communicates
          information on performance, work status, changes, issues, and
          results effectively.     Leads, develops, and manages a high
          performing, diverse workforce, ensuring employment practices
          are administered in a fair and equitable manner. Promotes and
          fosters an inclusive workplace where diversity is valued and
                                                                                      10

                leveraged to achieve the vision and mission of the organization.
                Recruits, hires, transitions into Federal service, and retains
                qualified employees, as applicable. Access, critically analyze,
                evaluate and apply risk information to the decision making
                process in support of organizational goals and objectives.
Id. at 45.    These core competencies 3 show material differences between the two
     positions in that the Supervisory Program Specialist position has full supervisory
     and managerial responsibilities while the Program Analyst position has none.
     The appellant asserts that he has supervisory experience. We do not question his
     assertion that he has such experience; however, he has not established that he
     acquired supervisory experience in the Program Analyst position. In order for the
     positions to be the same or similar, the appellant must show that both have the
     same or similar supervisory and managerial responsibilities.         The appellant’s
     submission of his application for the Supervisory Program Specialist position
     emphasizes the appellant’s prior supervisory experience, showing the importance
     of that experience to the Supervisory Program Specialist position.
             In his affidavit, the appellant states that he worked on a detail for the
     Office of Civil Rights on loan from the Atlanta Airport Federal Security Airport
     Staff. Id. at 14-15. He asserts that on that detail he documented the EEO process
     as a Program Analyst. Id. He explains that the purpose of the process flow was
     to determine the flow of hand-offs and decision points.           Id.    It included
     processing time for each step. The process flow diagram depicted actions from
     application submittal process to hearing. Id. Also, costs were determined for
     each step to determine where most of the costs were being incurred in the TSA
     process. Id. He argues that, similarly, in the Supervisory Program Specialist
     Position, he documented the Redress process, interviewing employees and the
     Director in order to “determine all steps” of the Redress process. Id. However,
     the detail position was not that from which the appellant was promoted, and thus

     3
       Although the appraisal forms set forth the core competencies for the respective
     positions, the appellant has not submitted positions descriptions or other documents
     showing the duties and responsibilities of the positions.
                                                                                        11

the duties described in that position would not establish that his Program Analyst
and Supervisory Program Specialist positions were the same or similar.
See Wafford v. U.S. Postal Service, 34 M.S.P.R. 691, 693-94 (1987); White v.
U.S. Postal Service, 34 M.S.P.R. 687, 690 (1987).
       In sum, the appellant has failed through his submissions to make a
nonfrivolous allegation that the Program Analyst position, which has no
supervisory or managerial duties and is in the I Band and the 0343 series,
is similar to the Supervisory Program Specialist position in the J Band and the
0301 series, with its supervisory and managerial responsibilities. 4 The appellant
has failed to nonfrivolously allege that the positions have duties that are similar
in nature and character and require substantially the same or similar
qualifications, so that the incumbent could be interchanged between the positions
without significant training or undue interruption to the work.             See 5 C.F.R.
§ 752.402.    The appellant has failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that
experience in the Program Analyst position demonstrates the knowledge, skills,
and abilities required to perform the work of the Supervisory Program Specialist
position. See Coradeschi, 439 F.3d at 1333. 5

4
  The appellant relies on Martinez v. Department of Homeland Security, 118 M.S.P.R.
154 (2012), Sandoval v. Department of Agriculture, 115 M.S.P.R. 71 (2010), and a
nonprecedential Board Order in support of his arguments. We find that Martinez and
Sandoval are distinguishable because, among other things, they did not involve a
comparison of supervisory and non-supervisory positions. Moreover, nonprecedential
orders generally are not binding on the Board. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c)(2).
5
  To establish whether two positions are the same or similar for the purposes of 5 U.S.C.
§ 7511, the Board also looks to whether the positions are in the same competitive level
for reduction in force purposes.          Beets v. Department of Homeland Security,
98 M.S.P.R. 451, 455 (2005); Spillers, 65 M.S.P.R. at 26. Positions are in the same
competitive level if they: (1) are in the same grade or pay scale; (2) are in the same
classification series; (3) have similar duties; and (4) require the same skills and
qualifications. See Spillers, 65 M.S.P.R. at 26. The appellant does not assert that the
Program Analyst and Supervisory Program Special positions are in the same
competitive level. We note, however, that the two positions are in different pay bands,
in different classification series, and as explained have different duties, suggesting that
they are not in the same competitive level.
                                                                                        12

       Accordingly, we find that the appellant has failed to make a nonfrivolous
allegation that he is an individual in the excepted service who has completed
2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an
executive agency. Thus, he has failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that he is
an employee under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii) 6 with appeal rights to the Board.
We dismiss his appeal of his removal for lack of jurisdiction. 7

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 8
       This is 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 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
6
  In his reply, the appellant incorrectly assumes that he qualifies as an employee under
5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(i). PFR File, Tab 5 at 4 n.1. It is undisputed, however, that
the appellant had permanent status in the excepted service and was never under an
initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service in either position.
Accordingly, 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(i) does not apply here. See Pennington v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 57 M.S.P.R. 8, 9-11 (1993).
7
  The appellant requests that, if the Board dismisses his appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
the Board remand his “mixed case for unmixed processing pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.302(b) . . . .” PFR File, Tab 5 at 11. Section 1614.302(b) provides that, if a
person files a timely appeal with the Board from the agency’s processing of a
mixed-case complaint and the Board dismisses it for jurisdictional reasons, the agency
shall reissue a notice giving the individual the right to elect between a hearing before an
administrative judge and an immediate final decision. The appellant has identified no
provision under which the Board must “remand” an appeal for processing as a
non-mixed case.
8
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions to provide a comprehensive
summary of all available review options. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot
advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                     13

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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
                                                                                 14

      (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
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:
                                                                                15

                            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.    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
                                                                              16

      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.