Court Opinion

ID: 9373183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:16.319362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.938340
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOSE E. ROSARIO-FABREGAS,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       NY-0752-13-0142-C-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: December 5, 2022
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jose E. Rosario-Fabregas, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pro se.

           Elizabeth Vavrica and Elizabeth Moseley, Jacksonville, Florida, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                           ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial
     decision, which granted in part his petition for enforcement. In his petition for
     review, the appellant reasserts that the agency is in noncompliance with the
     Board’s order regarding his return to duty, he disputes the instructions included in

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 administrative judge’s compliance initial decision, and he presents several
     arguments pertaining to prior appeals already disposed of by the Board.
     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 cas e; 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 mater ial
     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 compliance initial
     decision, referring the petition for enforcement to the Board’s Office of General
     Counsel for additional processing and issuance of a final decision. See 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.183(c).
¶2         Outstanding issues of compliance remain as to the appellant’s back pay and
     interest, information provided to the Social Security Administration for
     withholdings, and the appellant’s Thrift Savings Plan.       The agency submitted
     argument and evidence on June 16, August 11, October 10, October 20, and
     November 21, 2017, which have been entered into the record in MSPB Docket
     No. SF-0752-13-0142-X-1.       The Board’s Acknowledgment Order for MSPB
     Docket No. SF-0752-13-0142-X-1, dated June 16, 2017, includes instructions for
     how the parties must proceed in that matter, which is pending before the Board’s
     Office of General Counsel.
                                                                                        3

¶3        All subsequent filings should refer to MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-13-0142-
     X-1 and should be faxed to (202) 653-7130 or mailed to the following address:
                                    Clerk of the Board
                            U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
                                   1615 M Street, N.W.
                                  Washington, D.C. 20419
     Submissions may also be made by electronic filing at the MSPB’s e -Appeal site
     (https://e-appeal.mspb.gov) in accordance with the Board’s regulation at 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.14.
¶4        The agency is reminded that if it fails to provide adequate evidence of
     compliance, the responsible agency official and the agency’s representative may
     be required to appear before the Office of the General Counsel of the Merit
     Systems Protection Board to show cause why the Board should not impose
     sanctions for the agency’s noncompliance in this case. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c).
     The Board’s authority to impose sanctions includes the authority to order that the
     responsible agency official “shall not be entitled to receive payment for service as
     an employee during any period that the order has not been complied with.”
     5 U.S.C. § 1204(e)(2)(A).
¶5        This Order does not constitute a final order and is therefore not subject to
     judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). Upon the Board’s final resolution of
     the remaining issues in this petition for enforcement, a final order shall be issued
     which shall be subject to judicial review.

     FOR THE BOARD:                               /s/ for
                                                  Jennifer Everling
                                                  Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.