Court Opinion

ID: 9373254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:45.412068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.592942
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JASON M. STEIN,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       DC-0752-16-0729-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: November 3, 2022
                 Agency.

                THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jason M. Stein, Akron, Ohio, pro se.

           Mark R. Higgins, Norfolk, Virginia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction.       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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation 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 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 initial decision.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant asserted, and the agency does not dispute, that he is a
     preference-eligible veteran. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, Tab 4 at 3-4,
     Tab 7 at 4-5.     On July 27, 2015, the agency appointed him to the 2-year
     excepted-service position of GS-5 Electrical Engineer (Recent Graduate). IAF,
     Tab 7 at 10-12. The agency made this appointment using its Pathways Recent
     Graduates Program (PRGP) appointment authority. Id. at 10-14. Eleven months
     into the appointment, the agency terminated the appellant for misconduct. Id.
     at 14-17. The appellant filed this appeal of his termination. IAF, Tab 1 at 1, 5.
¶3        The administrative judge issued an order detailing, in pertinent part, the
     appellant’s jurisdictional burden as a preference-eligible excepted-service
     appointee to show that he met the definition of “employee” under 5 U.S.C.
     § 7511(a)(1)(B). IAF, Tab 2 at 3-4, Tab 3 at 2. After the parties responded, IAF,
     Tabs 4, 7, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction without holding the appellant’s requested hearing,
     IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID). Without making a finding as to whether he was
     a preference eligible, she concluded that the appellant could not meet the
                                                                                          3

     statutory definition of “employee” because he had less than 1 year of Federal
     service at the time of termination.       ID at 2-3.    She also found that, as an
     excepted-service appointee, he did not have a regulatory right to appeal his
     termination to the Board. ID at 3.
¶4         The appellant has timely petitioned for review by filing a lengthy
     submission in which he reargues the merits of his termination, including his
     argument that the agency terminated him for his recommendations regarding how
     to improve the work environment. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1; IAF,
     Tab 1 at 5. According to the appellant, the agency mistakenly viewed these ideas
     as a “partisan political agenda.” 2 IAF, Tab 1 at 5. The agency has responded to
     the petition for review. PFR File, Tab 3.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been
     given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.          Maddox v. Merit Systems
     Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75,
     subchapter II, an individual who meets the definition of “employee” at 5 U.S.C.
     § 7511(a)(1) generally has the right to challenge his removal from the Federal
     service by filing an appeal with the Board. Maibaum v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, 116 M.S.P.R. 234, ¶ 9 (2011). The statute provides that, to be considered
     an “employee” for the purposes of Board jurisdiction, a preference-eligible
     excepted-service appointee must complete 1 year of current continuous service,
     5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B); Maibaum, 116 M.S.P.R. 234, ¶ 9, while a

     2
       The appellant also asserts that, during the proceedings below, the agency improperly
     served him by mail, even though he was a registered e-filer. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5; IAF,
     Tab 1 at 2. However, the agency’s pleadings reflect that the agency submitted them
     electronically, and that the appellant automatically received electronic service as a
     result. E.g., IAF, Tab 7 at 19; see also 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(p)(1) (generally requiring
     that agencies and attorneys e-file pleadings in cases being adjudicated at the Board’s
     Washington Regional Office). Further, the appellant admits that he received the
     agency’s pleadings. Therefore, we decline to consider thi s argument further. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 5.
                                                                                      4

     nonpreference-eligible excepted-service trial or probationary appointee generally
     must complete 2 years of current continuous service under other than a temporary
     appointment of 2 years or less, 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C); Martinez v. Department
     of Homeland Security, 118 M.S.P.R. 154, ¶ 5 (2012). Here, the appellant was
     terminated 11 months into his 2-year appointment.         IAF, Tab 1 at 1, 7-8.
     Accordingly, the administrative judge correctly found that he is not an
     “employee” with a statutory right to appeal regardless of whether he was a
     preference eligible.
¶6         Further, the administrative judge correctly found that the appellant did not
     have a regulatory right to appeal under 5 C.F.R. § 315.806.       ID at 3.   Some
     probationary employees have a limited regulatory right to appeal their
     terminations, including on the basis of discrimination for partisan political
     reasons.   5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b).      However, this right is not available to
     employees, like the appellant, who are appointed to the excepted service. IAF,
     Tab 7 at 10; see Ramirez-Evans v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R.
     297, ¶ 10 (2010) (observing that the regulatory right to appeal under 5 C.F.R.
     § 315.806 generally applies only to individuals in the competitive service, and
     that an agency’s erroneous notice of appeal rights cannot expand the Board’s
     jurisdiction); 5 C.F.R. § 213.3402(b) (listing the PRGP as an excepted-service
     appointment authority).     Although the agency informed the appellant in his
     termination notice that he had a regulatory right of appeal, this information was
     in error because his appointment was to the excepted service .        IAF, Tab 7
     at 10-15. Therefore, the administrative judge properly declined to consider the
     appellant’s allegations that his termination was based on a “partisan political
     agenda.” IAF, Tab 1 at 5.
¶7         Finally, the appellant has offered multiple documents to support his petition
     for review. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8-94. Even assuming these documents are new
     evidence, we decline to consider them because the appellant has not shown that
     the information they contain was not available below despite his due diligence.
                                                                                      5

See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d) (providing that the Board may grant a petition for
review based on new and material evidence that, despite the petitioner’s due
diligence, was not available when the record closed below).           In addition, this
evidence, which includes pictures of candles, a job description, a Department of
Agriculture bulletin on underground plant design and construction, and articles on
psychology, is also not material to the dispositive jurisdictional issue. Russo v.
Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (observing that the Board
will not grant a petition for review based on new evidence absent a showing that
it is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial
decision). Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                         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 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

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.
                                                                                          6

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 partic ular
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
                                                                                  7

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 the ir 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
                                                                                      8

      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).
      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:

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 l aw 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.
                                                                                9

                             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 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.