Court Opinion

ID: 9960103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 14:00:52.078137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:11.113715
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

BRIAN R. NELSON,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        DE-315H-21-0119-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 12, 2024
            Agency.

           THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Aaron J. Gragg , Fort Huachuca, Arizona, for the appellant.

      Richard C. Wolfe , Esquire, Fort Huachuca, Arizona, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his probationary termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction.            On
petition for review, the appellant argues that he has new evidence showing that he
finished his initial probationary period before the agency terminated him.
Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 initial decision is based on an 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,
which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
      As noted above, the appellant claims he has new evidence that he received
from the agency on or about May 26, 2021, and he asserts that it was not
available to him, despite his due diligence, before the close of the record below.
Petition for Review File, Tab 2 at 5, 9.       He argues that the new evidence, a
Standard Form 50 (SF-50) dated April 22, 2020, states that he completed his
initial probationary period. Id. at 7, 9. However, with its motion to dismiss the
appeal filed below, the agency attached a copy of the same document and it
explained that the document was issued in error because the appellant had only
completed 1 year of the 2-year initial probationary period statutorily required by
10 U.S.C. § 1599e (repealed 2022). 2 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9 at 4-5, 11.
2
  At the time of the appellant’s appointment to his position, individuals appointed to a
permanent competitive-service position at the Department of Defense (DOD), such as
the appellant, were subject to a 2-year probationary period and only qualified as
“employees” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2016) if they completed 2 years of
current continuous service. 10 U.S.C. § 1599e(a), (b)(1)(A), (d) (2016). As found by
the administrative judge, the appellant had not completed 2 years of service at the time
of his termination. On December 27, 2021, President Biden signed into law the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (2022 NDAA), Pub. L.
No. 117-81, 135 Stat. 1541. The 2022 NDAA repealed the 2-year probationary period
for DOD appointments made on or after December 31, 2022, and replaced it with a
1-year probationary period. Pub. L. No. 117-81, § 1106, 135 Stat. 1541, 1950. That
                                                                                    3

Similarly, the SF-50 for the appellant’s April 2019 appointment states that the
position is subject to a 2-year initial probationary period, but also states that the
appellant will be changed from tenure group 2 to tenure group 1 after he
completes a 1-year probationary period. IAF, Tab 4 at 14, Tab 9 at 8. However,
the Board has long held that an SF-50 is not a legally operative document
controlling on its face as to an employee’s status and rights.             Stoute v.
Department of the Navy, 98 M.S.P.R. 409, ¶ 13 (2005) (citing Grigsby v.
Department of Commerce, 729 F.2d 772, 776 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).             Thus, even
though the record does not reflect that the agency issued a corrected SF-50
reflecting that the appellant had not completed his initial probationary period, the
2-year initial probationary period here was a statutory requirement under
10 U.S.C. § 1599e (repealed 2022), which the issuance of an erroneous SF-50
does not change. Id.
      The initial decision indicates that the administrative judge considered this
evidence, and that he correctly found that, because the appellant was appointed
after November 26, 2015, to a permanent position in the competitive service
within the Department of Defense, and had not completed the 2-year initial
probationary period required by 10 U.S.C. § 1599e (repealed 2022), he was not an
employee with appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.          IAF, Tab 17, Initial
Decision (ID) at 2.
      It is undisputed that the agency appointed the appellant to a position in the
competitive service on April 22, 2019, and terminated him less than 2 years later,
on January 21, 2021.      IAF, Tab 1 at 6-8.         Moreover, that appointment was
specifically made subject to a statutorily required 2-year initial probationary
period beginning on April 22, 2019. Id. at 8; see 10 U.S.C. § 1599e (repealed
2022). As the administrative judge observed, the appellant did not allege that his
termination was based on partisan political reasons or marital status. ID at 7. He
also observed that the appellant did not allege that his termination was based on

change does not affect the outcome of this appeal.
                                                                                      4

reasons arising in whole or in part before his appointment, so the agency was not
required to effect the appellant’s termination in accordance with the procedural
requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 315.805.         ID at 7-8.     Thus, we agree with the
administrative judge that the appellant identified no statutory or regulatory basis
for jurisdiction over the appeal.

                         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
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).
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.
                                                                                        5

      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.
      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. 420 (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
                                                                                  6

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
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
                                                                                      7

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:
                               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

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 law 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.
                                                                             8

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:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.