Court Opinion

ID: 9393802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 15:00:58.340115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.559902
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1010   Document: 31     Page: 1   Filed: 05/11/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   ERIC WILLIAMS,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

            DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                       2023-1010
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-3330-16-0292-B-1.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: May 11, 2023
                 ______________________

    ERIC WILLIAMS, North Charleston, SC, pro se.

     ELIZABETH MARIE PULLIN, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
                        Judges.
Case: 23-1010     Document: 31     Page: 2    Filed: 05/11/2023

 2                                           WILLIAMS   v. NAVY

 PER CURIAM.
    Eric Williams appeals from the final decision of the
 Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his re-
 quest for corrective action under the Veterans Employment
 Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). For the following rea-
 sons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Williams, a preference-eligible veteran, applied for
 a contract specialist position with the Department of the
 Navy (the Navy). The Navy advertised this position ac-
 cording to its referral certificates process in which hiring
 managers request a referral certificate that includes candi-
 dates who have applied on USAJOBS and are rated as
 “best qualified.” Because he was not rated “best qualified”
 based on the information he submitted in his application,
 S. Appx. 179–80, Mr. Williams was not included on either
 of the referral certificates sent to the hiring manager. S.
 Appx. 35. Unsatisfied with the referred candidates, the
 hiring manager opted to close the contract specialist posi-
 tion vacancy announcement, S. Appx 35, and instead filled
 the position pursuant to the Expedited Hiring Authority
 (EHA) program. S. Appx. 35; see 5 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(3); see
 also 10 U.S.C. § 1705(f). Specifically, she opted to fill the
 position through the EHA’s “name request” method in
 which the Navy expedites hiring through targeted recruit-
 ment efforts.
     After the Navy did not hire Mr. Williams for the posi-
 tion, he filed a complaint alleging the Navy violated his vet-
 erans’ preference rights.        The administrative judge
 dismissed Mr. Williams’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
 On Mr. Williams’ petition for review, the Board vacated the
 dismissal and remanded for further consideration. On re-
 mand, the administrative judge determined the Navy did
 not violate Mr. Williams’ preference rights. Specifically,
 the administrative judge rejected Mr. Williams’ arguments
 that the Navy inadequately credited his experience and
Case: 23-1010     Document: 31     Page: 3    Filed: 05/11/2023

 WILLIAMS   v. NAVY                                         3

 improperly filled the contract specialist position using the
 EHA program in violation of his right to compete under 5
 U.S.C. § 3304 and the “pass-over procedures” in 5 U.S.C.
 § 3318. S. Appx. 203–21. The administrative judge also
 found harmless the Navy’s failure to follow its EHA inter-
 nal implementation guidance requiring it to list its use of
 EHA procedures in the job vacancy announcement. S.
 Appx. 216–21. The Board affirmed. S. Appx. 245–55. Mr.
 Williams appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
      We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is (1) ar-
 bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
 in accordance with the law; (2) obtained without proce-
 dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol-
 lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(c). We review the Board’s statutory interpretations
 de novo. Augustine v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 503 F.3d
 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Mr. Williams argues the Navy
 violated several of his veterans’ preference rights when it
 filled the contract specialist position pursuant to EHA pro-
 cedures, including his right to compete and his pass-over
 procedural rights. Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. at 8,
 11–12. He also argues the Navy violated the notice re-
 quirements of its EHA implementation guidance. Id. at 5.
 We do not agree.
     Under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1), a preference-eligible vet-
 eran “may not be denied the opportunity to compete for va-
 cant positions.” The Navy did not deny Mr. Williams the
 right to compete for the contract specialist position. He had
 the opportunity to apply for the position, and the Navy con-
 sidered his application. The Navy simply elected not to for-
 ward Mr. Williams’ application to the hiring manager
 because he was not among the “best qualified” candidates
 as compared to other preference-eligible veterans. Veter-
 ans’ preference rights do not confer entitlement to a
Case: 23-1010     Document: 31      Page: 4    Filed: 05/11/2023

 4                                            WILLIAMS   v. NAVY

 position, only the right to compete. See 5 U.S.C. §
 3304(f)(3) (providing that § 3304(f) does not “confer an en-
 titlement to veterans’ preference that is not otherwise re-
 quired by law”), § 3304(f)(2) (noting that “if selected, a
 preference eligible . . . shall receive a career or career-con-
 ditional appointment” (emphasis added)).
      Nor did the Navy violate Mr. Williams’ rights by clos-
 ing the position and filling it under its EHA procedures.
 Section 3304(a)(3) permits the Navy to cancel a vacancy
 listing and fill the position without regard to veterans’ pref-
 erence rights. 5 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(3); see 10 U.S.C. § 1705(f)
 (establishing EHA); see also Abell v. Dep’t of Navy, 343 F.3d
 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding veterans’ preference
 rights do not require agency to hire from certificate and fill
 vacancies). The Navy, therefore, did not violate Mr. Wil-
 liams’ rights by closing the listing without hiring him and
 then hiring someone else pursuant to EHA procedures.
 Moreover, because § 3304(a)(3) permits filling vacancies
 pursuant to EHA procedures without regard to veterans’
 preference rights, the Navy did not violate Mr. Williams’
 pass-over rights. See 5 U.S.C. § 3318.
      Finally, Mr. Williams argues the Navy violated its in-
 ternal notice requirements for hiring under the EHA by not
 indicating in the job vacancy listing that the Navy may fill
 the position using EHA procedures. Appellant’s Informal
 Opening Br. at 5–6; see S. Appx. 48–49. As the Board
 stated, even though there were deficiencies in the Navy’s
 listing, that error was harmless because it did not affect
 Mr. Williams’ ability to compete for the position. See S.
 Appx. 252–53. He does not challenge that finding on ap-
 peal.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Williams’ other arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given, we af-
 firm the Board’s denial of Mr. Williams’ request for correc-
 tive action under the VEOA.
Case: 23-1010     Document: 31    Page: 5   Filed: 05/11/2023

 WILLIAMS   v. NAVY                                       5

                       AFFIRMED
                          COSTS
    No costs.