Court Opinion

ID: 9383283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 07:00:12.603295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:44.789837
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

EDWIN E. DILONE,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        DA-300A-17-0387-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: March 29, 2023
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Edwin E. Dilone, Eagle Point, Oregon, pro se.

      Patrick A. Keen, Shreveport, Louisiana, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his employment practices 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; 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 decisi on. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113(b).
¶2         As further detailed in the initial decision, the agency posted vacancy
     announcement VHA-671-17-GC-1940564-BU, a hybrid title 38 Social Worker
     position. Dilone v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. DA-300A-
     17-0387-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0387 IAF), Tab 5 at 12-18, Tab 11, Initial
     Decision (0387 ID) at 2, 4. Among other things, the announcement noted that
     persons hired to the position “must be licensed or certified by a state to
     independently practice social work at the master’s degree level.”         0387 IAF,
     Tab 5 at 13. The appellant applied for the vacancy but acknowledged that he
     lacked that qualification. Id. at 30. Therefore, the agency deemed him ineligible.
     Id. at 31-32.
¶3         The appellant filed a pleading with the Board, challenging his nonselection.
     0387 IAF, Tab 1.      The regional office docketed the matter as two separate
                                                                                           3

     appeals. The first, which is currently before us, was an employment practices
     appeal. 0387 IAF, Tab 2 at 1-2. The second, which is not before us at this time,
     was a Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA) appeal. 0387 ID
     at 2 n.2; Dilone v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. DA-3330-
     17-0380-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0380 IAF), Tab 3.
¶4        After affording the appellant an opportunity to establish jurisdiction over
     his nonselection in the instant employment practice appeal, the administrative
     judge issued an initial decision that dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
     0387 ID at 1. The appellant has filed a petition for review. Dilone v. Department
     of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. DA-300A-17-0387-I-1, Petition for
     Review (0387 PFR) File, Tab 1.           The agency has filed a response, and the
     appellant has replied. 0387 PFR File, Tabs 3-4.
¶5        As to the appellant’s employment practice claim at issue in the instant
     appeal, part 300, governing employment practices, only applies to positions in the
     competitive service. 5 C.F.R. § 300.101; see McKnight v. Department of Defense,
     103 M.S.P.R. 255, ¶¶ 9-10 (2006), aff’d per curiam, 227 F. App’x 913 (Fed. Cir.
     2007). Yet the undisputed evidence shows that the Social Worker position the
     appellant applied for was in the excepted service.         0387 IAF, Tab 5 at 12;
     0387 PFR File, Tab 1 at 6; see Graves v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     114 M.S.P.R. 209, ¶ 8 (2010) (recognizing that the positions identified in
     38 U.S.C. § 7401 are in the excepted service); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7401(3)
     (listing certain positions relating to the health c are of veterans, including the
     Social Worker position). Accordingly, we agree with the administrative judge’s
     determination   that   the   appellant    cannot   establish   jurisdiction   over   his
     nonselection as an employment practice claim. 0387 ID at 4-6.
¶6        The appellant’s petition contains no            substantive challenge to the
     administrative judge’s analysis regarding jurisdiction in the context of his
                                                                                          4

employment practice claim. All of his arguments pertain to jurisdiction in the
context of a VEOA claim. 3        0387 PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-12.           However, those
arguments are unavailing in this appeal. 4 See Meeker v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 319 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (recognizing that, “[i]In challenges
to employment practices, the relevant Office of Personnel Management
regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a), does not give the Board jurisdiction over any
and all legal challenges to employment practices; it grants jurisdiction to the
Board only with respect to challenges based on the three grounds set forth in
5 C.F.R. § 300.103,” which do not include violations of veterans’ preference)).
Therefore, we affirm the initial decision, dismissing this employment practices
appeal.

                          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

3
  The petition does contain the phrase, “employment practice,” but on ly once and only
in the context of alleging that the agency violated his veterans’ preference rights.
0387 PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. To the extent that the appellant’s reply does include an
employment practice argument, 0387 PFR File, Tab 4 at 5-6, he waived the matter by
failing to raise it in his petition, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(4) (recognizing that a reply
“is limited to the factual and legal issues raised by another party in the response to the
petition . . . [and] may not raise new allegations of error”).
4
  Because the appellant already had a separate VEOA appeal concerning the same
nonselection, we will not forward the VEOA claims presented on review in this
employment practice appeal for docketing as a new appeal. 0380 IAF, Tabs 1, 3.
Because the appellant’s petition for review and reply in the instant employment practice
appeal predate the initial decision in his VEOA appeal, it would also be inappropriate to
construe them as a petition for review in that VEOA appeal. Compare 0387 PFR File,
Tabs 1, 4 (the appellant’s petition for review and reply brief in this employment
practices appeal, both dated September 2017), with 0380 IAF, Tab 11 (the initial
decision in the appellant’s VEOA appeal, dated October 2017).
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

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 wh ich 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 applicab le 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 partic ular
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.
                                                                                    6

      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
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 th eir 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
                                                                                  7

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
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. 6   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

6
  The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
                                                                                      8

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.

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petition s 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

      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.