Court Opinion

ID: 9373755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:09.102269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.245686
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     WILL S. GREER, II,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       DA-0752-17-0149-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                    DATE: April 18, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Will S. Greer, II, Schertz, Texas, pro se.

           Lawrence Lynch, Esquire, Joint Base San Antonio, Randolph, Texas, for
             the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we
     DISMISS the appellant’s petition for review as moot.
¶2         As further detailed in the initial decision of the instant appeal, the appellant
     held the position of Motor Vehicle Operator at the agency’s Randolph Air Force

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     Base.     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 16, Initial Decision (ID) at 2.         In
     October 2013, the agency removed him from that position for violating a last
     chance agreement. Id.
¶3           The appellant filed his first appeal, challenging his removal, but an
     administrative judge dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction and the Board
     affirmed.     Id.; see Greer v. Department of the Air Force, MSPB Docket
     No. DA-0752-14-0055-I-1, Final Order (Sept. 12, 2014). The appellant then filed
     a second appeal, again challenging his removal, but an administrative judge
     similarly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, based on collateral estoppel, which is
     also known as issue preclusion. ID at 2; see Greer v. Department of the Air
     Force, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-15-0324-I-1, Initial Decision (Aug. 8, 2015).
     In this appeal, his third, the appellant has challenged his removal on ce more.
     IAF, Tab 1. The administrative judge again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
     based on collateral estoppel. ID at 2-5.
¶4           The initial decision in this appeal was set to become final on March 30,
     2017, unless a petition for review was filed by that date. ID at 5. Several days
     after that deadline, on April 5, 2017, the appellant electronically filed a pleading
     that has been construed as a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tabs 1-2. In the days that followed, the appellant als o filed a pleading with the
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking the court to review his
     Board appeals. Greer v. Department of the Air Force, 718 F. App’x 962, 964
     (Fed. Cir. 2017).
¶5           During the period that followed, the Clerk of the Board responded to the
     pending petition for review, explaining that it appeared untimely and providing
     the appellant with an opportunity to submit a motion concerning timeliness. PFR
     File, Tab 3 at 2. The appellant failed to submit that motion or any other response
     before the April 22, 2017 deadline for doing so. He did file a June 21, 2017
     reply, after the agency moved to dismiss the appellant’s petition as untimely, but
                                                                                           3

     his reply contained no argument or evidence concerning his untimeliness. PFR
     File, Tabs 4-5.
¶6         In December 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a decision that deemed the
     initial decision in this appeal the Board’s final decision because the appellant
     failed to submit a timely petition for review or a timely motion to waive his
     untimeliness with the Board. Greer, 718 F. App’x at 964 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The
     court further found that the administrative judge correctly dismissed this appeal
     based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Id. at 964-65.
¶7         A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties
     lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the case. Hess v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 124 M.S.P.R. 40, ¶ 8 (2016). An appeal will be dismissed as moot if, by
     virtue of an intervening event, the Board cannot grant any effectual relief in favor
     of the appellant. Id.
¶8         Here, the Federal Circuit’s opinion about this case has rendered the
     appellant’s petition for review with the Board moot.            The court found the
     appellant’s petition for review with the Board untimely and further found that the
     administrative judge correctly dismissed his appeal based on collater al estoppel.
     Greer, 718 F. App’x at 964-65. In light of that intervening event—a decision by
     our reviewing court—it is not necessary for us to further consider the timeliness
     of the appellant’s petition or the administrative judge’s conclusion that this
     appeal is barred by collateral estoppel.

                              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).

     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.
                                                                                        4

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 fo rum.
      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.
                                                                                    5

      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 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
                                                                                  6

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 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

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
                                                                                      7

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.

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

      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.