Court Opinion

ID: 9953255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 18:00:39.909808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:55.210945
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

RONALD C. GRAHAM,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         AT-315H-18-0244-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: March 20, 2024
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Frankie Baker , Tampa, Florida, for the appellant.

      Barbara Kehoe , Esquire, St. Petersburg, Florida, 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
dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such
as this one only in the following circumstances:        the initial decision contains
erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
      Effective July 23, 2017, the agency appointed the appellant to a Nursing
Assistant position in the excepted service subject to the completion of a 1 -year
probationary period. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 6. The record reflects
that the appellant had prior service that the agency credited towards completion
of his probationary period and that his probationary period was scheduled to end
on February 21, 2018. Id. By notice dated January 8, 2018, the agency informed
the appellant that he would be terminated from his position based on alleged
misconduct effective January 10, 2018.       IAF, Tab 1 at 9-11.      The appellant
appealed and, attached to his appeal, he submitted a Standard Form 50 (SF-50)
showing that he resigned from his position effective January 10, 2018. Id. at 8.
The administrative judge issued an initial decision that dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction upon finding that the appellant failed to show that he was an
employee with appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C). IAF, Tab 6, Initial
Decision (ID) at 3-4. The appellant petitions for review of the initial decision
and the agency responds in opposition to the petition for review. Petition for
Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 4.
      The appellant has the burden of proving the Board’s jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence.          Niemi v. Department of the Interior,
114 M.S.P.R. 143, ¶ 8 (2010).       The administrative judge must provide the
                                                                                  3

appellant with explicit information on what is required to establish an appealable
jurisdictional issue. Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641,
643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, because the appellant is a nonpreference eligible
in an excepted-service appointment, he must satisfy the definition of “employee”
set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C) to have Board appeal rights. McCrary v.
Department of the Army, 103 M.S.P.R. 266, ¶ 7 (2006).
      In her jurisdictional order, the administrative judge provided the appellant
with notice of how a competitive service employee could establish the Board’s
jurisdiction over his appeal. IAF, Tab 3. She did not provide Burgess notice
appropriate to the appellant’s situation. However, the Board has held that the
failure to provide an appellant with proper Burgess notice in an acknowledgement
order or show cause order can be cured if the initial decision itself puts the
appellant on notice of what he must do to establish jurisdiction so as to afford
him the opportunity to meet his jurisdictional burden for the first time on review.
Caracciolo v. Department of the Treasury, 105 M.S.P.R. 663, ¶ 11 (2007),
overruled on other grounds by Brookins v. Department of the Interior ,
2023 MSPB 3. Although the administrative judge’s jurisdictional order did not
contain Burgess notice appropriate to this appeal, the initial decision did contain
this notice. ID at 2-3. Thus, the appellant received actual notice of how he may
establish jurisdiction over his appeal and an opportunity to establish jurisdiction
on review. Under the circumstances, the administrative judge’s failure to provide
proper Burgess notice below did not prejudice the appellant’s substantive rights.
Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984).
                                                                                      4

      Under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C), an “employee” is a nonpreference eligible
in the excepted service:
      (i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial
      appointment pending conversion to the competitive service; or
      (ii) 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[.]
5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C); McCrary, 103 M.S.P.R. 266, ¶ 7.            According to the
evidence of record, the appellant resigned 2 prior to completing his probationary
period and cannot satisfy section 7511(a)(1)(C)(i). IAF, Tab 1 at 8. According to
the service computation date on the SF-50 documenting his resignation, he had
less than 2 years of total Federal service at the time of his separation, and
therefore, he cannot satisfy section 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii). Id.
      In his petition for review, the appellant again argues that the agency’s
reasons for terminating him are false. PFR File, Tab 1. He does not address the
issue of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we find that the administrative judge correctly
found that the appellant failed to show that he is an “employee” with appeal
rights to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C), and properly dismissed this
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file.              5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
2
 Whether the appellant resigned or was terminated, he is required to show that he is an
“employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C).
3
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        5

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition   to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
                                                                                    6

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

      (2) Judicial   or   EEOC     review   of   cases     involving   a   claim   of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.     5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security.           See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
                                                                                      7

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant     to   the    Whistleblower      Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or
2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial
review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 4 The court of appeals must receive your

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  8

petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      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.