Court Opinion

ID: 9373444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:06.106941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.502761
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     STACEY VICTOR NELSON,                           DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DE-0845-14-0626-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: September 6, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Stacey Victor Nelson, Fulton, South Dakota, pro se.

           Tanisha Elliott Evans, Washington, D.C., 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
     affirmed a reconsideration decision by the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM) finding that he had been overpaid annuity benefits under the Federal
     Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) and that he did not qualify for a waiver 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 id entified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                          2

     the overpayment. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only when: 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 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).
¶2         In January 2009, OPM approved the appellant’s application for FERS
     disability retirement annuity benefits effective November 2008. Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 8 at 8, 17. In January 2012, OPM notified the appellant that he
     received   an   overpayment     of   $18,546.65,    and   the   appellant   requested
     reconsideration and a waiver of the overpayment. Id. at 18, 20-23. OPM issued a
     final decision in August 2014, confirming the existence and amount of the
     overpayment and denying the appellant’s waiver request. Id. at 6-7. OPM noted
     that the appellant provided no financial data in support of his waiver request
     although OPM gave him a Financial Resources Questionnaire (FRQ), which he
     did not submit even after requesting additional time to do so. Id. at 7. To prevent
     possible financial hardship, however, OPM reduced the original repayment
     schedule from 36 monthly installments of $515.18, to 73 monthly installments of
     $257.59 to be collected by withholding from the appellant’s future monthly
     annuity payments. Id. at 7, 18. The appellant appealed OPM’s final decision to
                                                                                           3

     the Board, and he provided an FRQ in support of his waiver request. IAF, Tabs
     1, 14.
¶3            The administrative judge issued an initial decision based on the written
     record, affirming OPM’s final decision concerning the overpayment and waiver
     denial but modifying OPM’s repayment schedule because of the appellant’s
     financial circumstances.     IAF, Tab 64, Initial Decision (ID) at 22-23.          The
     administrative judge found that OPM proved the existence and amount of the
     $18,546.65 overpayment, which consisted of the following: (1) $14,825.48 for
     health insurance premiums; (2) $2,409.14 for life insurance premiums; and
     (3) $1,312.03 for an annuity overpayment, including taxes withheld. 2 ID at 4-7.
     The administrative judge found that the appellant was without fault in creating
     the overpayment but he failed to prove that he was entitled to a waiver.             ID
     at 16-18. Although no waiver applied, the administrative judge modified OPM’s
     proposed repayment schedule.        ID at 22-23.     Specifically, the administrative
     judge found it reasonable to extend the appellant’s payment plan to 92 months,
     with a monthly withholding of $200.00, and a final payment of $146.00 in the
     93rd month. ID at 23. In adjusting the collection schedule, the administrative
     judge considered the appellant’s FRQ, evidence that his debts and anticipated
     expenses exceed his available assets, and that he is disabled and unable to work.
     ID at 20, 22-23.
¶4            The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision,
     reasserting the arguments he made on appeal that his due process rights were
     violated and that he is entitled to a waiver.       Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 1.      The appellant does not dispute the administrative judge’s findings

     2
       The administrative judge found that OPM could have claimed a higher annuity
     overpayment if it had relied on the appellant’s official statements. ID at 6-7, 18 n.17.
     He further found that the appellant benefitted from OPM’s failure to take advantage of
     repeated notices and opportunities to explain why, based on the official Statements of
     Annuities provided by the appellant, the overpayment could have been greater than
     OPM claimed. ID at 6.
                                                                                      4

     concerning the existence and amount of the overpayment.         OPM responded in
     opposition to his petition, and the appellant replied. PFR File, Tabs 4-5.
¶5        As the administrative judge correctly stated in the initial decision, ID at 7,
     recovery of an overpayment may be waived if the appellant is without fault and
     recovery would be against equity and good conscience, 5 C.F.R. § 845.301.
     Recovery would be against equity and good conscience in the following
     circumstances: (1) recovery would cause financial hardship to the person from
     whom it is sought; (2) the recipient of the overpayment can show, regardless of
     his financial circumstances, that due to the notice that the payment would be
     made, or because of the incorrect payments, he relinquished a valuable right or
     changed positions for the worse; or (3) recovery would be unconscionable under
     the circumstances. 5 C.F.R. § 845.303.
¶6        Financial hardship may exist when an appellant needs substantially all of
     his current income and liquid assets to meet current “ordinary and necessary”
     living expenses and liabilities. See 5 C.F.R. § 845.304. After completing his
     analysis of the appellant’s FRQ, the administrative judge reduced some of the
     appellant’s claimed expenses as not “ordinary and necessary,” added $50 per
     month for emergencies, and determined that the appellant’s disposable monthly
     income exceeded his ordinary and necessary monthly expenses by $1,011.51.
     ID at 8-12. Thus, the administrative judge found that the appellant did not prove
     that he was entitled to a waiver based on financial hardship. ID at 8. Although
     the appellant disputes the administrative judge’s ultimate finding that he was not
     entitled to a waiver, he submits no new evidence of financial hardship on review.
     PFR File, Tab 1 at 7.        We find no error in the administrative judge’s
     determination that the appellant is not entitled to a waiver based on financial
     hardship.
¶7        To prove waiver based on detrimental reliance, an appellant must prove
     among other things that the relinquishment or change directly caused by the
     overpayment is significant enough to warrant the waiver and irrevocable, i.e., the
                                                                                      5

     forfeited right cannot be recovered and/or the change of position cannot be
     reversed.   Alexander v. Office of Personnel Management, 58 M.S.P.R. 358,
     364-65 (1993); ID at 13. On review, the appellant reasserts his argument that he
     is entitled to a waiver because he relied to his detriment on the overpayment.
     PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-4.     He argues that on appeal he provided uncontested
     evidence, consisting of his sworn statement and affidavits from his spouse and his
     ex-wife, showing that he permanently lost public assistance benefits and waived
     receipt of child support in detrimental reliance on the overpayment. Id. at 4. In
     addition, for the first time on review, the appellant submits the U.S. Department
     of   Agriculture’s   2008-2009 Income     Eligibility Guidelines for free and
     reduced-price school meals to support his argument that his family would have
     qualified for this benefit but for OPM’s overestimating his retirement annuity
     income, which left him ineligible to apply. Id. at 3, 9. He also submits a copy of
     a State of South Dakota Child Support Obligation Calculator. Id. at 10.
¶8         The administrative judge found, and we agree, that the appellant was not
     entitled to a waiver of the overpayment based on detrimental reliance because he
     did not show that he permanently relinquished a valuable right or changed
     positions for the worse by relying on the overpayment. ID at 12-15. Although
     the appellant submitted proof that the overpayment amount he received led him to
     decline child support from his ex-wife and that he did not apply for public
     assistance or qualify for free or reduced-price lunch for his children because of
     the overpayment, he has not shown that the rights he forfeited cannot be
     recovered and/or his change of position cannot be reversed.         IAF, Tab 61
     at 75-76, Tab 62 at 5-6; PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-10. Specifically, the appellant has
     not shown that he is precluded from reapplying for public assistance benefits or
     free or reduced-price lunch for his children or modifying his child support
     agreement based on his current income.
¶9         On review, the appellant restates his argument that the overpayment
     adversely affected his daughter’s eligibility for student financial aid and grants
                                                                                      6

      because colleges consider parental income in determining financial aid for
      students. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5. He raises this argument as proof that he is
      entitled to a waiver of the overpayment based on detrimental reliance.        We
      considered the appellant’s evidence that his annuity overpayment may have
      caused one of his daughters to be “ineligible for certain grants and low interest
      college loans” in 2010 and that she subsequently left college and joined the Navy.
      IAF, Tab 61 at 75, Tab 62 at 6. Although we accept the appellant’s argument that
      colleges generally consider parental income in determining student financial aid,
      we find that the appellant has not shown how OPM’s overpayment caused him to
      relinquish a valuable right that cannot be recovered or that his possible changed
      position for the worse cannot be reversed, even assuming that the overpayment
      adversely affected his daughter’s eligibility for college financial aid. PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 4; ID at 15. Accordingly, we find that the appellant’s arguments on
      review are insufficient to prove that he is entitled to a waiver based on
      detrimental reliance.
¶10        When a recipient of an overpayment does not meet the financial hardship
      and detrimental reliance requirements for a waiver, a waiver may nevertheless be
      granted where the circumstances establish that recovery would be unconscionable
      on other equity grounds. Aguon v. Office of Personnel Management, 42 M.S.P.R.
      540, 549 (1989). Because the concept of unconscionability is generally defined
      in terms of broad, equitable considerations, the Board will consider all relevant
      factors using a “totality-of-the-circumstances” approach to determine if recovery
      of an annuity overpayment is unconscionable in a given case.           Id.   Such
      circumstances may include, but are not limited to, cases in which OPM:
      (1) delayed adjusting an annuity for an exceptionally long period of time;
      (2) failed to respond in a reasonable length of time to an annuitant’s inquiries
      regarding an overpayment; (3) failed to expeditiously adjust an annuity after
      receiving specific notice; or (4) was grossly negligent in handling a case.
      Aguon, 42 M.S.P.R. at 550. The unconscionability criterion is a high standard
                                                                                         7

      justifying waiver only under exceptional circumstances.         Boone v. Office of
      Personnel Management, 119 M.S.P.R. 53, ¶ 9 (2012).
¶11         The administrative judge found that the appellant did not prove
      unconscionability, in part because OPM was not grossly negligent and did not
      unreasonably delay the final adjustment of the appellant’s annuity or fail to
      respond to his request for a waiver within a reasonable length of time. ID at 16.
      On review, the appellant argues that recovery would be unconscionable because
      OPM double-reported the overpayment to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
      which caused him to incur an unfair tax liability in 2012. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5.
      The appellant also asks the Board to order OPM to provide the IRS with corrected
      documentation     to   remove   the     2012   overpayment   that    OPM    allegedly
      double-reported to the IRS. Id. at 8.
¶12         The administrative judge specifically considered and repeatedly rejected the
      appellant’s argument that recovery would be unconscionable because he incurred
      an unfair tax liability. ID at 13-14; IAF, Tabs 40, 48. The administrative judge
      properly found that OPM is legally required to withhold Federal income taxes
      from annuity benefits and remit them to the IRS and that the appellant must seek
      a remedy from the IRS to the extent that any benefits adjustments or resulting
      overpayments affected his past tax liability. ID at 13; see Cebzanov v. Office of
      Personnel Management, 96 M.S.P.R. 562, ¶ 11 (2004).                 We find that the
      administrative judge’s findings are supported by the applicable law as cited in the
      initial decision. ID at 13.
¶13         Although the appellant also argues that recovery would be unconscionable
      because he was not at fault in creating the overpayment and OPM personnel
      initially told him that he was being underpaid, we find that the appellant has not
      shown exceptional circumstances justifying waiver. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, 7; see
      Boone, 119 M.S.P.R. 53, ¶ 9. Moreover, contrary to the appellant’s argument on
      review, we find that he has not shown that repaying the overpayment would leave
                                                                                       8

      him in a worse financial position than he would have been in if there had been no
      overpayment. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5.
¶14           On review, the appellant argues that his due process rights were violated
      because the administrative judge denied his request for discovery to obtain
      evidence to support his claim that he called the agency about his interim
      retirement annuity and “long overdue finality.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. The Board
      will not reverse an administrative judge’s rulings on discovery matters absent an
      abuse of discretion. Wagner v. Environmental Protection Agency, 54 M.S.P.R.
      447, 452 (1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Table). On appeal, the
      administrative judge denied the appellant’s motion to compel discovery, finding
      that the agency provided an adequate response to the appellant’s discovery
      request and that sanctions were neither necessary nor appropriate . IAF, Tab 12
      at 4. The administrative judge also found that the appellant’s discovery requests
      were cumulative and duplicative and would impose a burden on the agency that
      would outweigh any likely benefit. Id. We find that the appellant’s arguments on
      review do not show that the administrative judge abused his discretion in ruling
      on these discovery matters. Moreover, to the extent that the appellant is claiming
      that he has a due process right to discovery, his claim has no merit. PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 5; see Markland v. Office of Personnel Management, 73 M.S.P.R. 349,
      357 (1997), aff’d, 140 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
¶15           On review, the appellant also argues that his due process rights were
      violated because he asked repeatedly to call witnesses from OPM who verbally
      assured him that he was being underpaid and would be owed back pay. 3 PFR
      File, Tab 1 at 2. The administrative judge has wide discretion under 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.41(b)(8), (10) to exclude witnesses when it has not been shown that their
      testimony would be relevant, material, and nonrepetitious. Franco v. U.S. Postal
      Service, 27 M.S.P.R. 322, 325 (1985). Before the appellant decided to provide

      3
          On review, the appellant does not identify the witnesses by name.
                                                                                        9

      written submissions in lieu of hearing testimony, the administrative jud ge denied
      one of the appellant’s requested witnesses on the ground that her testimony would
      have been duplicative of the expected testimony of the appellant and his other
      approved witness. IAF, Tab 60 at 2, Tab 61 at 1. We find that the appellant’s
      arguments on review do not show that the testimony of the denied witness would
      have been relevant, material, or not repetitious. IAF, Tab 60 at 2; see 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.41(b)(8), (10); see also Franco, 27 M.S.P.R. at 325.
¶16         The appellant also argues that he was denied due process because OPM
      began collecting the overpayment while his appeal was pending before the Board.
      PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 845.205(d), collecting overpayments
      will begin after the Board has acted on any timely appeal of a waiver denial,
      unless failure to make an offset would substantially prejudice the Government’s
      ability to collect the debt; and the amount of time before the payment is due to be
      made does not reasonably permit completing the proceedings. If the collections
      offset begins before the administrative review process is finished, OPM’s
      regulations require that the “amounts recovered by offset but later found not owed
      will be refunded promptly.”      Id.   Here, however, the appellant cites to no
      evidence in the extensive appeal record showing that OPM prematurely recovered
      any of the overpayment through collections offset during the pendency of his
      appeal or that he did not owe any of the overpayment prematurely recovered. We
      therefore find that the appellant’s argument on review presents no basis to disturb
      the initial decision.
¶17         On review, the appellant asserts that the administrative judge showed bias
      for OPM and was not impartial. Administrative judges are presumed to be honest
      and to act with integrity. Oliver v. Department of Transportation, l M.S.P.R. 382,
      386 (1980). Accordingly, an administrative judge’s conduct during the course of
      a Board proceeding warrants a new adjudication only if the administrative judge’s
      comments or actions evidence “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would
      make fair judgment impossible.” Bieber v. Department of the Army, 287 F.3d
                                                                                              10

      1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
      555 (1994)). The appellant claims that the administrative judge raised objections
      to evidence accepted by OPM and “failed to address several pertinent issues and
      applied the law incorrectly.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. We find, however, that none
      of the appellant’s claims of bias demonstrate any deep-seated favoritism or
      antagonism. 4 We also find that the administrative judge properly weighed the
      evidence, reached the correct conclusion under the law, and issued a
      well-reasoned decision. Should the appellant’s financial situation change or his
      monthly expenses exceed his monthly income, nothing in this Final Order
      prevents the appellant from contacting OPM and requesting an adjusted
      repayment scheduled based on an updated FRQ.

                                             ORDER

¶18         We ORDER OPM to reduce the appellant’s repayment schedule to a rate of
      $200.00 for 92 months, with a final payment of $146.00 in the 93rd month. OPM
                                                                                          5
      must complete this action no later than 20 days after the date of this decision.
¶19         We also ORDER OPM to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it
      believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it took to
      carry out the Board’s Order. We ORDER the appellant to provide all necessary

      4
        Moreover, as previously noted, although the administrative judge found that the
      appellant failed to establish his entitlement to a waiver of the overpayment, he adjusted
      OPM’s proposed repayment schedule by reducing the appellant’s monthly payments.
      ID at 22-23.
      5
         The appellant is hereby notified that OPM has advised the Board that it may seek
      recovery from an annuitant’s estate or other responsible party of any debt remaining
      upon his or her death. A party responsible for any debt remaining upon an annuitant’s
      death may include an heir (spouse, child, or other) who derives a benefit from the
      annuitant’s Federal benefits, an heir or other person acting as the representative of his
      or her estate if, for example, the representative fails to pay the United States before
      paying the claims of other creditors in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b), or
      transferees or distribute[r]s of your estate. Pierotti v. Office of Personnel Management,
      124 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 13 (2016).
                                                                                           11

      information OPM requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant,
      if not notified, should ask OPM about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶20         No later than 30 days after OPM tells the appellant it has fully carried out
      the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the
      office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that
      OPM did not fully carry out the Board’s Order.           The petition should contain
      specific reasons why the appellant believes OPM has not fully carried out the
      Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications
      with OPM. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶21         This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
      appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113(c) ( 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.113(c)).

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
            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.

      6
        Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
      the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
      Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        12

      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

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

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our websi te at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review     of   cases      involving   a   claim      of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
                                                                                 13

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such ac tion
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 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:
                                                                                     14

                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

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

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant     to   the   Whistleblower       Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in s ection
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. 7   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).

7
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jur isdiction 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.
                                                                                15

      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

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