Court Opinion

ID: 9959449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 18:00:59.493248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:19.692297
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MENSUR OMERBASHICH,                             DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          SF-3330-22-0378-I-1

             v.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND                        DATE: April 10, 2024
  SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
             Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Mensur Omerbashich , Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, pro se.

      Janice Fried , Moffett Field, California, 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 of a nonselection 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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
      On May 17, 2022, the appellant filed an appeal with the Board asserting
that he was not selected for a position for which he applied, and that in the
application process, the agency committed a prohibited personnel practice when it
publicly listed only 3 of the 12 selection criteria, leaving 75% of the selection
criteria a “secret.”   Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 5, Tab 3 at 3.        In an
acknowledgment order, the administrative judge explained that the Board has
jurisdiction   over    a   nonselection   claim   only   in   the   following   limited
circumstances: when such a claim is raised in conjunction with an employment
practices claim under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a), when it is raised within the context
of a suitability determination, and when an appellant alleges that the nonselection
was made in reprisal for whistleblowing under the whistleblower protection
statutes, the product of discrimination based on uniformed service under the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), or
violative of his veterans’ preference rights pursuant to the Veterans Employment
Opportunity Act of 1998 (VEOA). IAF, Tab 2 at 2-5. The administrative judge
ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument clarifying which of the above
situations applied to his allegations. Id. at 5. In response, the appellant asserted
                                                                                     3

that the agency’s decision to publish only 3 of the 12 selection criteria constituted
an “irrational employment practice or a suitability action.” IAF, Tab 3 at 3. The
administrative judge then issued a supplemental jurisdictional order informing the
appellant of what he must assert to allege the Board’s jurisdiction over an
employment practices claim. IAF, Tab 4.
      Following the supplemental jurisdictional order, the appellant did not
address his jurisdictional burden but, rather, requested on several occasions that
the administrative judge recuse himself for failing to find that the Board has
jurisdiction over his claims and that the full Board decide his appeal. 2 He also
objected to the administrative judge’s “involvement” in the appeal and requested
that the appeal be transferred to the Washington Regional Office. IAF, Tab 5
at 3, Tab 7 at 3, Tab 8 at 3. The administrative judge considered the appellant’s
requests for recusal but found that the appellant’s allegations did not meet the
standard for disqualification.    He also declined to transfer the appeal to the
Washington Regional Office because the appellant failed to meet the regulatory
requirements for such a transfer and the request was otherwise unsupported. IAF,
Tab 6 at 1-2, Tab 9 at 1-2.
      Thereafter, the administrative judge provided the appellant with a third
opportunity to nonfrivolously allege the Board’s jurisdiction over his appeal.
IAF, Tab 9 at 2-5.     The appellant did not substantively respond to the third
jurisdictional order but, rather, continued to argue that the administrative judge
should recuse himself and that the appeal should be transferred to the Washington
Regional Office. IAF, Tab 10.

2
  The appellant also referenced a separate appeal he has before the Board, Omerbashich
v. Department of the Interior, MSPB Docket No. DC-3443-19-0540-I-1. That appeal
was adjudicated separately and is currently pending before the Board on review. The
appellant also requested that the instant appeal “remain[] open” until his other appeal
has been ruled on by the full Board. IAF, Tab 5 at 3. The administrative judge denied
that request after reasoning that the appellant declined to “adequately explain how the
appeals are related.” IAF, Tab 6 at 2-3.
                                                                                          4

         On June 24, 2022, the administrative judge issued an initial decision on the
written record. 3 IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision (ID). After reiterating his findings
regarding the appellant’s renewed requests for recusal and the transfer of his
appeal and informing the appellant of his right to file a separate appeal to address
potential USERRA, VEOA, or whistleblower reprisal claims, the administrative
judge discussed the appellant’s nonselection within the context of an employment
practices claim, but ultimately found that the appellant failed to make
nonfrivolous allegations of Board jurisdiction in that regard.                   ID at 5-9.
Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ID at 1, 10.
         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, stating
that he wants to withdraw his appeal due to the administrative judge’s lack of
authority to decide his case. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3. He also
asserts that the initial decision is “obtuse.” Id. He submits a supplement to his
petition for review detailing his communications with the Office of the Clerk of
the Board regarding his submissions on review. PFR File, Tab 2. The agency has
not responded to the appellant’s submissions.

                    DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
We construe the appellant’s submissions on review as a petition for review of the
initial decision.
         Following the appellant’s filing of a pleading entitled “Petition for
Review” in which he expressed his desire to withdraw his appeal, the Office of
the Clerk of the Board contacted him to clarify the intent of his submission. Id. at
5-6. In response, the appellant asserts that “[r]egardless [of] what heading” his
pleading was filed under, he “stopped recognizing” the administrative judge’s
authority prior to the issuance of the initial decision.             Id. at 5.    Thus, the
appellant’s intent to withdraw his appeal is predicated on his belief that the
administrative judge lacked authority in this matter to decide his appeal. 4
However, he has not provided any argument or evidence to support that position,
3
    The appellant did not request a hearing in this matter. IAF, Tab 1 at 2.
                                                                                    5

and the Board’s regulations explicitly provide for an administrative judge’s
authority to issue an initial decision. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.41(b)(15).
      Further, a voluntary withdrawal of an appeal must be by clear, unequivocal,
and decisive action.   Cason v. Department of the Army, 118 M.S.P.R. 58, ¶ 5
(2012); Bass v. U.S. Postal Service, 96 M.S.P.R. 683, ¶ 6 (2004). Given that the
appellant’s request to withdraw his appeal is conditioned on his unproven and
incorrect belief that the administrative judge lacked the authority to decide his
appeal, we cannot find that his withdrawal request is unequivocal. Based on the
foregoing, we construe the appellant’s submissions on review as a petition for
review of the initial decision, which we address on the merits below.

The appellant has not provided a basis to disturb the initial decision.
      To reiterate, the appellant alleged in his appeal that he was not selected for
a position for which he applied, and that the agency improperly publicized only 3
of the 12 selection criteria. IAF, Tab 1 at 5. As noted, in the initial decision, the
administrative judge explained that one of the limited bases upon which the
Board may consider a nonselection claim is when an appellant asserts that an
employment practice applied to him by the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) violates a basic requirement in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103.            ID at 7-8; see
5 C.F.R. §§ 300.104(a), 1201.3(a)(7). Under such circumstances, the Board has
jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a) when the following two conditions are
met: (1) the appeal must concern an employment practice that OPM is involved
in administering; and (2) the appellant must make a nonfrivolous allegation that
the employment practice violated one of the “basic requirements” for employment
practices set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103.      Sauser v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 403, ¶ 6 (2010).

4
  Nothing in the appellant’s pleadings below or on review suggest that his position on
the administrative judge’s authority to decide his appeal is related to the issues
discussed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 585 U.S. 237 (2018). See McClenning v. Department of the Army,
2022 MSPB 3, ¶¶ 5-25.
                                                                                    6

      In his appeal, the appellant alleged that the agency’s failure to publicize all
of the selection criteria constitutes an employment practice that violates the
requirements for employment practices under 5 C.F.R. § 300.103(b) because “a
rational relationship between performance in the position to be filled and the said
employment practice no longer exists.” IAF, Tab 3 at 3. In the initial decision,
the administrative judge concluded that these allegations failed to adequately
explain how his nonselection involved an appealable employment practice or to
adequately explain OPM’s involvement in administering a purported employment
practice. ID at 9. As such, he found that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously
allege the Board’s jurisdiction over the appeal. ID at 10.
      The appellant does not challenge these findings on review, and we discern
no reason to disturb them.    As a threshold matter, the appellant has failed to
nonfrivolously allege that his appeal concerns an appealable employment
practice. Although the term “employment practices” includes the development
and use of, among other things, qualification standards and measurement
instruments, see Mapstone v. Department of the Interior, 110 M.S.P.R. 122, ¶ 8
(2008), the appellant has not alleged that the selection criteria themselves
constitute an appealable employment practice, only the agency’s alleged failure to
adequately publicize them. IAF, Tabs 1, 3; PFR File Tabs 1-2. Additionally,
while we acknowledge that an agency’s misapplication of a valid OPM
requirement may constitute an employment practice, that is typically only the
case when those requirements concern merit considerations, rather than
procedural decisions. See Mapstone, 110 M.S.P.R. 122, ¶ 8; Maule v. Office of
Personnel Management, 40 M.S.P.R. 388, 393-94, aff’d, 892 F.2d 1050 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (Table).    Here, the OPM requirement implicated by the appellant’s
allegations is that a vacancy announcement include qualification requirements,
including the knowledge, skills, and abilities or competencies required of
applicants, see 5 C.F.R. § 330.104 (setting forth the requirements for vacancy
                                                                                        7

announcements), which the appellant asserts the agency failed to do. 5 We find
such a requirement to be procedural in nature because it is not related to the
propriety of a selection—which would be a merits determination—but is a tool or
procedure for filling a vacancy.
      Nonetheless, even if the appellant had nonfrivolously alleged an appealable
employment practice, he has still not nonfrivolously alleged that such an
employment practice fails to meet the basic requirements for employment
practices set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103. See Sauser, 113 M.S.P.R. 403, ¶ 6. In
that regard, we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant’s allegation
that “a rational relationship between performance in the position to be filled and
the said employment practice no longer exists” is a bare allegation that merely
restates the jurisdictional standards for an employment practices appeal and,
therefore, does not constitute a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction. ID at 9;
IAF, Tab 3 at 3; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s)(1) (explaining that a nonfrivolous
allegation is more than conclusory).         Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s
petition for review and affirm the initial decision’s dismissal of the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

                          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

5
  Although the appellant submitted portions of his on-line application for the position at
issue, the vacancy announcement itself is not in the record. Thus, we cannot review the
sections of the vacancy announcement that usually provide information about the
position the agency is seeking to fill.
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.
                                                                                        8

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).
      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
                                                                                    9

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. 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
                                                                                     10

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. 7   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

7
   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.
                                                                                11

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.
                                                                       12

      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.