Court Opinion

ID: 9373477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:18.74862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.597063
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RYAN A. DAHL,                                    DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                   DE-0752-21-0146-X-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                          DATE: August 19, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Ryan A. Dahl, Colorado Springs, Colorado, pro se.

           Stephen Coutant, Esquire, Fort Carson, Colorado, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         In a February 18, 2022 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     found the agency in partial noncompliance with the Board’s August 30, 2021
     final decision mitigating the appellant’s removal to a 30-day suspension without
     pay and ordering the agency to retroactively restore him with back pay and

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     benefits. Dahl v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-21-0146-
     I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 32, Initial Decision (ID) 2; Dahl v. Department of the
     Army, MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-21-0146-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 4,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID). For the reasons discussed below, we find the
     agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for enforcement.

         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2        In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found the
     agency in partial noncompliance with the Board’s final decision in the
     underlying appeal to the extent it had failed to pay the appellant all back pay
     owed, with interest. CID at 4-5. Accordingly, he granted the appellant’s petition
     for enforcement and, in relevant part, ordered the agency to pay the appellant the
     appropriate amount of back pay. CID at 5.
¶3        The administrative judge informed the agency that, if it decided to take the
     ordered actions, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board a narrative statement
     and evidence establishing compliance. CID at 6. The compliance initial decision
     also informed the parties that they could file a petition for review if they
     disagreed with the compliance initial decision. CID at 6-7. Neither party filed
     any submission with the Clerk of the Board within the time limit set forth in
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)-(c), the
     administrative judge’s findings of noncompliance have become final, and the
     appellant’s petition for enforcement has been referred to the Board for a fina l
     decision on the issues of compliance. Dahl v. Department of the Army, MSPB
     Docket No. DE-0752-21-0146-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1.
¶4        On March 28, 2022, the Board issued an acknowledgment order directing
     the agency to submit evidence showing that it has complied with all actions
     identified in the compliance initial decision.          CRF, Tab 1 at 3.          The

     2
      The initial decision became the final decision of the Board on October 4, 2021, after
     neither party petitioned for administrative review. ID at 15.
                                                                                        3

     acknowledgment order also notified the appellant that he may respond to any
     submission from the agency by filing written arguments with the Clerk o f the
     Board within 20 calendar days of the date of service of the agency’s submission.
     Id.   The appellant was cautioned, however, that if he did not respond to the
     agency’s evidence of compliance within those 20 calendar days, the Board “may
     assume you are satisfied and dismiss your petition for enforcement.” Id. at 3-4.
¶5         In its April 12, 2022 compliance submission, the agency informed the
     Board, in relevant part, that it had complied with the Board’s final order by
     paying the appellant his back pay with interest. CRF, Tab 2. As evidence of its
     compliance, the agency provided a copy of the appellant’s pay statement for pay
     period ending March 12, 2022, showing that he received a net payment of
     $9,478.06 for his back pay award ($9,146.64 in back pay plus $331.42 in
     interest). Id. at 15. The agency also provided a copy of the back pay calculation
     worksheet prepared by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Id. at 14.
     The appellant did not respond to the agency’s submission .

                                       ANALYSIS
¶6         When the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted or not sustainable, it
     orders that the appellant be placed, as nearly as possible, in the situation he
     would have been in had the wrongful personnel action not occurred. House v.
     Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 530, ¶ 9 (2005). The agency bears the
     burden to prove its compliance with a Board order. An agency’s assertions of
     compliance must include a clear explanation of its compliance actions supported
     by documentary evidence. Vaughan v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R.
     319, ¶ 5 (2011). The appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence of compliance
     by making “specific, nonconclusory, and supported assertions of continued
     noncompliance.” Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 325,
     ¶ 5 (2010).
                                                                                           4

¶7         Here, as noted above, the administrative judge found that, to establish
     compliance with the Board’s final decision in the underlying appeal, the agency
     must pay the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay.            CID at 5.     The
     agency’s submission reflects that it has now paid the appellant $9,146.64 in back
     pay, as well as $331.42 in interest on the back pay award. The appellant has not
     responded to the agency’s compliance submission, despite being notified of his
     opportunity to do so and being cautioned that the Board may assume he is
     satisfied and dismiss his petition for enforcement if he did not respond. CRF,
     Tab 1. Accordingly, we assume that the appellant is satisfied with the agency’s
     compliance. See Baumgartner v. Department of Housing & Urban Development ,
     111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
¶8         In light of the foregoing, we find that the agency is now in compliance and
     dismiss the appellant’s petition for enforcement. This is the final decision of the
     Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the
     Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

                              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 b elow 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

     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

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
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.
                                                                                  6

      (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 tha t 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 their resp ective
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 Employm ent
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:
                                                                                      7

                            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. 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).

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 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.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed throug h 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.