Court Opinion

ID: 9375159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 07:00:12.715426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.370838
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GLORIA J. SANFORD,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DE-1221-17-0176-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: February 24, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Gloria J. Sanford, Littleton, Colorado, pro se.

           Patrick A. Keen, Shreveport, Louisiana, 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 her individual right of action (IRA) 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;

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 further detailed in the initial decision, the appellant filed the instant
     appeal, seeking to challenge the purported inaction of the Office of Special
     Counsel (OSC) on a complaint she filed involving the Department of Veterans
     Affairs (the agency). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, 5, Tab 22, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 1.    The administrative judge construed the matter as an IRA
     appeal against the agency. IAF, Tab 3 at 1; ID at 1-2.
¶3         The administrative judge issued an initial decision that explained the
     Board’s jurisdictional limitations in IRA appeals and instructed the appellant to
     meet her jurisdictional burden. IAF, Tab 3. After both parties responded to the
     order, IAF, Tabs 5-6, 10-15, 17-19, the administrative judge issued an initial
     decision that dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ID at 6. He found that
     the appellant failed to prove that she first exhausted any retaliation claim with
     OSC before coming to the Board. ID at 4-6.
¶4         After the administrative judge issued the initial decision, the appellant filed
     numerous pleadings that were rejected as untimely.         IAF, Tabs 25 -29.     The
     appellant then filed this petition for review, in which she stated the following,
     without argument:     “I am requesting a review based on all the information I
                                                                                             3

     detailed and sent . . . on March 17, 2017.” Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1
     at 3. The reference to March 17, 2017, implicates some of the aforementioned
     pleadings, which were rejected and are not part of the existing record.              IAF,
     Tabs 26-28.
¶5         The Office of the Clerk of the Board provided the appellant with an
     opportunity to supplement her petition for review, which she did.              PFR File,
     Tabs 2-3. That supplement contains arguments suggesting that the administrative
     judge erred in denying the appellant’s motion for recusal and he should have
     permitted further argument on that motion.            PFR File, Tab 3 at 3.          The
     supplement does not contain any arguments concerning her failure t o establish
     Board jurisdiction.     Id.   Although the appellant submitted several additional
     pleadings and an improper motion for leave to submit an additional pleading
     before the agency filed its response to her petition, these were rejected. PFR File,
     Tabs 4-8, 10; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5).          Thereafter, the agency filed its
     timely response to the appellant’s petition, and she replied.                 PFR File,
     Tabs 11-12. 2
¶6         A petition for review must contain sufficient specificity for the Board to
     ascertain whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge justifying a complete
     review of the record. Tines v. Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92
     (1992).   Under the Board’s regulations, a petition for review must identify
     specific evidence in the record demonstrating any alleged erroneous findings of
     material fact and explain why the challenged factual determinations are incorrect.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(a).

     2
      Before the agency filed the response to the petition for review, the appellant also filed
     a proper motion for leave to submit an additional pleading, asserting that she has
     evidence supporting recusal of the administrative judge and a “new adjudication.” PFR
     File, Tab 9. Because the appellant admits in her motion that she was aware of the
     additional information she seeks to submit at the time she filed her petition for review,
     we deny her motion for leave as the appellant could have included this information in
     her petition for review or supplement.
                                                                                         4

¶7         Because the appellant has filed her petition for review pro se, we have
      construed it liberally. Harper v. Office of Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R.
      309, ¶ 9 (2011). Nevertheless, we are unable to discern any specific challenges
      she makes to the administrative judge’s jurisdictional findings.
¶8         As    the   administrative   judge   correctly   recognized,   an   appellant’s
      jurisdictional burden in an IRA appeal includes proving t hat she exhausted her
      administrative remedies with OSC. IAF, Tab 3 at 2; ID at 2 -3; see Edwards v.
      Department of the Air Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 307, ¶ 15 (2013). The Board has
      consistently held that it may only consider the specific allegations of reprisal
      which have been presented to OSC.         E.g., Coufal v. Department of Justice,
      98 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 14 (2004). In this case, the administrative judge found that the
      appellant failed to meet the exhaustion requirement because she provided minimal
      evidence of correspondence with OSC and none that involved allegations of
      retaliation. ID at 3-5. We discern no basis for concluding otherwise. See, e.g.,
      IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 19 at 5.
¶9         Separately, we have considered the appellant’s arguments concerning
      recusal, including those asserted below. PFR File, Tab 3 at 3; IAF, Tab 20 at 4.
      In short, the appellant argued that the administrative judge could not be impartial
      in the instant appeal because the appellant requested review of his dismissal in
      another Board appeal. IAF, Tab 20 at 4 (referencing Sanford v. Department of
      the Interior, MSPB Docket No. DE-3443-17-0175-I-1). We disagree.
¶10        In making a claim of bias or prejudice against an administrative judge, a
      party must overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity t hat accompanies
      administrative adjudicators. Oliver v. Department of Transportation, 1 M.S.P.R.
      382, 386 (1980). An administrative judge’s conduct during the course of a Board
      proceeding will warrant a new adjudication only if his 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 1358, 1362-63 (Fed.
                                                                                             5

      Cir. 2002) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Here, the
      appellant has failed to identify anything of the sort.
¶11         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                               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.
      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).

      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 in dicated in the notice, the
      Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                         6

      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
                                                                                  7

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
                                                                                      8

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 2 302(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.
      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

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.
                                                                             9

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.