Court Opinion

ID: 9391375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 06:00:09.913893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.584204
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KATHY LYNN CARTER,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-0752-21-0485-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: May 1, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Kathy Lynn Carter, Brandywine, Maryland, pro se.

           Kevin Greenfield, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed her removal.      For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the
     appellant’s petition for review as moot.

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
       Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
     completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                           2

¶2         The appellant was formerly employed as a GS-9 Acquisition and Financial
     Support Specialist with the agency. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 13 at 10. On
     May 21, 2021, the agency issued a decision removing the appellant based on a
     charge of absence without leave with 21 specifications, and a charge of failure or
     delay in carrying out written regulations, orders, rules, procedures, or
     instructions, with 23 specifications. 3 IAF, Tab 13 at 18-24.
¶3         The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging her removal, and in an
     October 28, 2021 initial decision, the administrative judge sustained both charges
     and all of the underlying specifications, determined that the appellant failed to
     prove her harmful procedural error affirmative defense, found a nexus between
     the sustained charges and the efficiency of the service, and concluded that the
     removal penalty did not exceed the tolerable limits of reason ableness.            IAF,
     Tab 18, Initial Decision (ID) at 3-18.       Accordingly, the administrative judge
     affirmed the removal action and notified the parties that the initial decision would
     become final on December 2, 2021, unless either party filed a petition for review
     by that date. ID at 1, 20.
¶4         The appellant filed a petition for review of the initial decision through the
     Board’s e-Appeal Online system on December 3, 2021, at 12:23 a.m., 23 minutes
     after the deadline for doing so.      Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.        The
     Office of the Clerk of the Board issued a letter to the appellant acknowledging
     her petition for review, explaining that it appeared untimely, and providing the
     appellant with an opportunity to submit a motion concerning timeliness on or
     before December 18, 2021.           PFR File, Tab 3 at 1-2, 7-8 (citing 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(g)). The appellant failed to submit a motion or any other response to
     the Office of the Clerk’s letter.

     3
       The agency subsequently issued an amended decision letter on May 24, 2021, which
     still sustained the removal but changed the effective date from May 21, 2021, to June 4,
     2021. IAF, Tab 13 at 11-17.
                                                                                        3

¶5         On December 27, 2021, twenty-four days after the appellant’s filing of her
     untimely petition for review with the Board, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
     Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) notified the Board that the appellant filed a
     pleading asking the court to review her Board appeal.         Notice of Docketing,
     Carter v. Department of Defense, No. 2022-1305 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2021). On
     June 14, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued a decision that deemed the initial
     decision in this appeal the Board’s final decision because the appellant failed to
     file a petition for review with the Board within 35 days. Carter v. Department of
     Defense, No. 2022-1305, 2022 WL 2128592, at *2 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2022), cert.
     denied, 143 S. Ct. 490 (2022). The court further found that the administrative
     judge’s findings sustaining the agency removal action, that the agency established
     nexus, and that the removal penalty was reasonable were all supported by
     substantial evidence.   Id. at *4-5. Consequently, the court concluded that the
     Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary
     to law, and affirmed the decision. 4 Id. at *1.
¶6         A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties
     lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the case. Hess v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 124 M.S.P.R. 40, ¶ 8 (2016). An appeal will be dismissed as moot if, by
     virtue of an intervening event, the Board cannot grant any effectual relief in favor
     of the appellant. Id.
¶7         Here, the Federal Circuit’s opinion affirming the final Board decision has
     rendered the appellant’s petition for review with the Board moot.         The court
     acknowledged that the appellant’s petition for review with the Board was
     untimely and further found that the administrative judge correctly affirmed the
     agency removal action. Carter, No. 2022-1305, 2022 WL 2128592, at *1-2. In
     light of that intervening event—a decision by the Federal Circuit—it is not

     4
       The appellant filed a petition for panel rehearing, which the court denied in a per
     curiam order dated July 14, 2022. Order Denying Petition for Panel Rehearing, Carter
     v. Department of Defense, No. 2022-1305 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2022).
                                                                                      4

necessary for us to further consider the timeliness of the appellant ’s petition or
the administrative judge’s finding affirming the removal action. Accordingly, we
dismiss the petition for review as moot.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file.            5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
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).

5
  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

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

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

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review     of   cases      involving    a   claim   of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
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
                                                                                  6

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:
                            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
                                                                                      7

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. 6   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

      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
   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

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.