Court Opinion

ID: 9827999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:00:44.098051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:45.892676
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ERICE MAURICE KENCY,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-3330-18-0193-I-1

                  v.

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

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Erice Maurice Kency, Grovetown, Georgia, pro se.

           Michael E. Hokenson, Esquire, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA) appeal as
     untimely. 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 petitio ner’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
¶2         On November 21, 2017, the appellant filed a VEOA complaint with the
     Department of Labor (DOL).          Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 4.       On
     December 6, 2017, DOL sent the appellant an email containing notice that it had
     closed his complaint file without taking corrective action.        Id. at 16-17. The
     notice informed the appellant that he had “15 calendar days from the date of
     receipt of this letter” to file an appeal with the Board. Id. at 16.
¶3         The appellant filed his Board appeal on December 26, 2017. IAF, Tab 1.
     The administrative judge issued an order on timeliness, informing the appellant
     that his appeal appeared to have been filed 5 days late, notifying him of the
     standard for showing that either his appeal was timely or that the filing period
     should be equitably tolled, and directing him to file evidence and argument on the
     issue. IAF, Tab 4. The appellant did not respond to the order. After the close of
     the record, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the
     appeal as untimely. IAF, Tab 7, Initial Decision.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review, arguing that his appeal was
     timely because the 15-day deadline did not begin to run until December 11, 2017.
                                                                                       3

     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2.       He admits to receiving DOL’s
     original closeout notice on December 6, 2017, but asserts that DOL sent him a
     new closeout notice on December 11, 2017, to correct the case number. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 5 at 6. The agency has responded to the petition for review,
     and the appellant has filed a reply to the agency’s response. PFR File, Tabs 3 , 5.

                                        ANALYSIS
¶5        A VEOA appeal must be filed within 15 days after the complainant receives
     written notification from DOL that the complaint could not be resolved. 5 U.S.C.
     § 3330a(d)(1)(B).    The 15-day deadline is statutory and mandatory, with no
     provision to waive the deadline for good cause shown. However, the deadline is
     subject to equitable tolling. Alegre v. Department of the Navy, 118 M.S.P.R. 424,
     ¶ 17 (2012). Accordingly, failure to meet this deadline will result in a dismissal
     on timeliness grounds unless the appellant can establish a basis to equitably toll
     the filing period. See Gingery v. Department of the Treasury, 110 M.S.P.R. 83,
     ¶¶ 22-25 (2008).
¶6        In this case, it is undisputed that the appellant originally received DOL’s
     closeout notice on December 6, 2017. IAF, Tab 1 at 16; PFR File, Tab 1 at 2.
     Measured from that date, the appellant’s December 26, 2017 VEOA appeal was
     untimely by 5 days. The appellant, however, argues that the filing period should
     be measured from December 11, 2017, when he received a new copy of the
     closeout notice, corrected to show the proper case number. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2,
     Tab 5 at 6.
¶7        The appellant is raising this argument for the first time on petition for
     review even though it is based on evidence that was in his possession before the
     close of the record below. The Board has long held that it will not consider an
     argument raised for the first time on review absent a showing that it is based on
     new and material evidence not previously available d espite the party’s due
     diligence. Washington v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 69 M.S.P.R. 86, 88
                                                                                      4

(1995); Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980); see
5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).     The appellant in this case has not explained why he
failed to make this or any other argument in response to the administrative
judge’s timeliness order below.      Thus, the appellant’s late-raised argument is
precluded by the Board’s regulations. Therefore, we affirm the initial decision.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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

2
  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

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. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision bef ore you do, then you must file
                                                                                 6

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 c ondition, 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
                                                                                      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. 3   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.

3
   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.