Court Opinion

ID: 9372869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:14.119449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:38.267973
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ERIC LANE SEARCY,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                         AT-0752-17-0083-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                     DATE: February 10, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           David Carl Jones, Warner Robins, Georgia, for the appellant.

           Frank M. Wood, Esquire, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his removal 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of
     the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge ’s rulings during either
     the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required
     procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the
     outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available
     that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record
     closed.    Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115
     (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).    After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we
     conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115
     for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review
     and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        The agency removed the appellant from his position of Sheet Metal
     Mechanic, effective October 21, 2016, for breaching a last chance agreement
     (LCA) by failing to observe safety procedures and engaging in careless
     workmanship. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 33-34. Under the terms of the
     LCA, the appellant agreed to refrain from any misconduct for a 2-year period
     beginning on December 15, 2014. Id. at 15-16, 31. The LCA provided that the
     agency could summarily remove the appellant during that 2-year period if he
     committed any misconduct, including, but not limited to, “failing to comply with
     any written rules or Air Force Instructions.” Id. at 16. The terms of the LCA
     also specified that the appellant voluntarily agreed and understood that he waived
     his right to appeal any such removal. Id. at 16-17.
¶3        The appellant’s removal stemmed from an incident on September 15, 2016,
     in which he violated agency instructions by backing up a 30-foot trailer into a
     building without a spotter. Id. at 33. During the incident, the appellant hit and
     damaged a bay door. Id. In the removal decision notice, the agency specified
                                                                                       3

     that the appellant violated Air Force Instruction (AFI) 91-203, Air Force
     Consolidated Occupational Safety Instruction, paragraph 32.4.3. Id. at 19-20, 33.
     That section states, in relevant part, “A spotter shall be posted when moving large
     equipment and vehicles backwards or in close quarters.” Id. The agency also
     specified that the appellant’s conduct violated AFI 24-301, Air Force Materiel
     Command Supplement, Transportation, Vehicle Operations, paragraph 2.4.13. Id.
     at 21-22, 33.   That paragraph also requires the use of a spotter under certain
     circumstances when backing up a vehicle. Id. The agency removed the appellant
     for violating the LCA by engaging in the specified misconduct. Id. at 33-34.
¶4        The appellant filed a timely appeal with the Board challenging his removal.
     IAF, Tab 1.     The agency filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction, arguing that the appellant waived his right to appeal the removal
     under the terms of LCA. IAF, Tab 4 at 6-8. The administrative judge issued an
     order specifically informing the appellant of what he needed to establish for the
     Board to have jurisdiction over his appeal.       IAF, Tab 5.     In response, the
     appellant argued that the LCA no longer applied because the agency changed his
     job duties when it transferred him to a different position than the one he occupied
     when he signed the LCA. IAF, Tab 6 at 5. The appellant also argued that the
     LCA was no longer in effect because the action for which he was removed
     occurred more than 1 year after he signed the LCA. Id. The agency responded by
     arguing that the appellant was removed pursuant to a valid LCA, the terms of
     which included his agreement to waive his right to appeal his removal for
     committing any misconduct during the 2-year period that the LCA was in effect.
     IAF, Tab 7 at 4-5.
¶5        The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for
     lack of jurisdiction based on her findings that the appellant’s waiver of his appeal
     rights in the LCA was valid and that his misconduct occurred during the 2-year
     period that the waiver was in effect. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 3-5.
     The administrative judge also found that the LCA applied regardless of the
                                                                                           4

     appellant’s position at the agency because the LCA did not prohibit the agency
     from reassigning him to other duties or positions. ID at 4. She dismissed the
     appeal without holding the hearing requested by the appellant based on her
     finding that there was no factual dispute relevant to the jurisdictional issue. ID
     at 1; IAF, Tab 1 at 2.
¶6         The appellant has filed a petition for review challenging the administrative
     judge’s decision to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction .          Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.        The agency has responded in opposition to his
     petition. PFR File, Tab 2.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶7         The appellant argues for the first time on review that he did not breach the
     LCA. 2 PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6. We disagree, and we explain below why we will
     consider this argument, even though it was not raised on appeal.
¶8         The appellant bears the burden of proving that his appeal is within the
     Board’s jurisdiction. Bruhn v. Department of Agriculture, 124 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 9
     (2016); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A).       The Board lacks jurisdiction over an
     action taken pursuant to an LCA in which an appellant waives his right to appeal
     to the Board. Bruhn, 124 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 9. An appellant may establish that a
     waiver of appeal rights in a LCA should not be enforced by showing, as relevant
     here, that he complied with the LCA. Id. The appellant argues that only willful
     misconduct could violate the LCA, and he contends that his misconduct was not
     willful because he had a spotter, and the spotter told him it was clear but then
     walked away without his knowledge. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6.
¶9         The Board generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time in
     a petition for review. Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271

     2
       On review, the appellant does not dispute the administrative judge’s findings that the
     LCA was valid and in effect when the agency removed him. ID at 4-5; PFR File, Tab 1
     at 5. We decline to disturb these findings.
                                                                                            5

      (1980).   However, there is an exception for arguments regarding the Board’s
      jurisdiction because this issue may be raised at any time during the Board
      proceedings. Pirkkala v. Department of Justice, 123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 5 (2016).
      The plain language of the LCA provided that the agency could “summarily
      remove[]” the appellant for “failing to comply with any written rules or Air Force
      Instructions.” IAF, Tab 4 at 15-16, 31. The terms of the LCA did not specify
      that the appellant’s misconduct had to be willful to warrant his removal by the
      agency, and breach can be established by proving material noncompliance with
      the terms of the LCA “regardless of . . . motive.”         Id. at 15-16; see Link v.
      Department of the Treasury, 51 F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
¶10         Because the appellant agreed to waive his right of appeal in the LCA, and
      he has failed to allege that the waiver is unenforceable under the applicable
      criteria, we find that the administrative judge properly dismissed his removal
      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
      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

      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.
                                                                                        6

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.
                                                                                  7

      (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. ____ , 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:
                                                                                       8

                            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 petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.                5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

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 la w 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 o f competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  9

      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.