Court Opinion

ID: 2962658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:00:24.364782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:21.842239
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOHN R. VASTINE, JR.,                           DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-831M-15-0200-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: September 21, 2015
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           John R. Vastine, Jr., Washington, D.C., pro se.

           Patrick Jennings, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                              Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                                 Mark A. Robbins, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has petitioned for review of the May 1, 2015 initial decision
     in this appeal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 14; Petition for Review (PFR) File
     Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for review as
     settled.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

¶2        After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document
     entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated on July 29, 2015.
     PFR, File, Tab 5. The document provides, among other things, for the dismissal
     of the petition for review. Id., ¶ 1.
¶3        Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the
     parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend
     to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See
     Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 149 (1988). We find here that
     the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they
     understand the terms, and that they want the Board to enforce those terms. See
     PFR File, Tab 5, ¶ 5.
¶4        In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for
     enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful
     on its face, whether the parties freely entered into it, and whether the subject
     matter of this appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction, that is, whether a law,
     rule, or regulation grants the Board the authority to decide such a matter. See
     Stewart v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 104, 107 (1997). We find here that
     the agreement is lawful on its face, that the parties freely entered into it, and that
     the subject matter of this appeal – an appeal of a final reconsideration decision
     issued by the Office of Personnel Management regarding retirement annuity
     benefits – is within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d).          IAF,
     Tab 7(2). Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for review “with
     prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is
     appropriate under these circumstances, and we accept the settlement agreement
     into the record for enforcement purposes.
¶5        This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal.
     Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113).
                                                                                  3

                        NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR
                            ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS
     If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the
agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by
promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial
decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the
petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not
been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any
communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

                  NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                     YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
     You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to
the court at the following address:
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                for the Federal Circuit
                              717 Madison Place, N.W.
                               Washington, DC 20439

     The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar
days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec.
27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has
held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline
and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See
Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
     If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff.
Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United
States   Code,     at    our   website,   http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm.
Additional       information     is   available    at    the    court’s    website,
                                                                                  4

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, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the
United States 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 Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services
provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation
in a given case.

FOR THE BOARD:                               ______________________________
                                             William D. Spencer
                                             Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.