Court Opinion

ID: 9372956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:47.345231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.432510
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ANTHONY E. MUZEREUS, III,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-3330-16-0605-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: February 1, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Michael W. Macomber, Albany, New York, for the appellant.

           Leah S. Serrano, Alexandria, Virginia, 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
     denied his request for corrective action pursuant to the Veterans Employment
     Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). On petition for review, the appellant asserts
     that the agency should have considered his military service toward meeting the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     time-in-grade and specialized experience requirements for the position at issue
     and that the administrative judge improperly relied on Kerner v. Department of
     the Interior, 778 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015), in denying corrective action.
     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 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         As the administrative judge properly concluded, when an agency fills a
     vacancy via the merit promotion process, a preference-eligible veteran does not
     receive any advantage beyond the ability to apply and be considered for the
     position.   Miller v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 818 F.3d 1357,
     1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Walker v. Department of the Army, 104 M.S.P.R. 96, ¶
     15 (2006) (finding that 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) does not provide preference
     eligibles with any advantage beyond the opportunity to compete for particular
     positions); see Montgomery v. Department of Health & Human Services ,
     123 M.S.P.R. 216, ¶ 11 (2016) (finding that the right to compete under 5 U.S.C.
     § 3304(f) includes the agency’s consideration of the veteran’s application).
     However, the opportunity-to-compete provision set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)
     does not apply to veterans, like the appellant, already employed in the Federal
                                                                                       3

     civil service who are seeking merit promotions. Oram v. Department of the Navy,
     2022 MSPB 30, ¶¶ 15-17 (citing Kerner, 778 F.3d at 1338-39).            Thus, the
     appellant was not entitled, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 3304(f) or 3311, or any other
     veterans’ preference statute or regulation, to consideration of his non-Federal
     civil service experience, i.e., his military experience , for the purposes of
     determining whether he met the time-in-grade or other eligibility requirements of
     the position. Kerner, 778 F.3d at 1339.
¶3        On review, the appellant argues that his case is distinguishable from Kerner
     because the petitioner in Kerner lacked the requisite specialized experience,
     whereas the appellant had the required specialized experience , but the agency did
     not consider it.   Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 11.      However, the
     petitioner in Kerner explicitly argued, as did the appellant here, that the agency
     violated his rights under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f) because it did not credit his
     non-Federal civil service experience towards the time-in-grade requirement in
     accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 3311.     Kerner, 778 F.3d at 1337-38.      We find no
     principled basis to distinguish Kerner on its facts. The appellant also asserts on
     review that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit)
     engaged in “misplace[d] reliance on the legislative history of the VEOA,” in
     reaching its conclusion in Kerner and that the Board should thus reject the
     principle of stare decisis and not follow the court’s decision. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 13-16.   Kerner is controlling authority that the Board is bound to follow.
     Oram, 2022 MSPB 30, ¶ 17; see Conner v. Office of Personnel Management,
     120 M.S.P.R. 670, ¶ 6 (2014), aff’d, 620 F. App’x 892 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
     (explaining that it is axiomatic that precedential decisions of the Federal Circuit
     are controlling authority for the Board and that the Board is bound to follow them
     unless they are overruled by the court sitting en banc ). The appellant further
     argues on review that Kerner is inconsistent with another Federal Circuit case,
     Lazaro v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and
     that Kerner, therefore, is of little precedential value. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9 -10.
                                                                                      4

The court’s decision in Lazaro does not state whether the vacancy announcement
in question was filled through an open competitive process or merit promotion
procedures, and thus the strength of any comparisons among Kerner, Lazaro, and
the instant case is not clear. 2    The appellant’s arguments on review do not
demonstrate that he is entitled to corrective action.

                         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
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.

2
  In a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit interpreted Lazaro as not
involving a vacancy filled using the merit promotion process. Barry v. Department of
Defense, No. 2017-2142, 2017 WL 5474219 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).
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

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.

      (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
                                                                                  6

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 b y 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
                                                                                      7

      (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).
      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.

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

      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.