Court Opinion

ID: 9942118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 16:00:25.068109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:41.946276
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

VERNITA D. BOYD,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                         CH-0841-19-0192-I-1

               v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                              DATE: February 16, 2024
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

          THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

         Vernita D. Boyd , Wheeling, Illinois, pro se.

         Michael Shipley , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                       BEFORE

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

                                    FINAL ORDER

         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her initial appeal as untimely filed without good cause shown.           On
petition for review, the appellant reiterates identical arguments raised, and
addressed below, and fails to identify any errors made by the administrative
judge.     Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
find that the administrative judge’s erroneous calculation of the length of the
appellant’s untimeliness was harmless, we AFFIRM the initial decision, which is
now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
      With exceptions not applicable here, the deadline for filing an appeal is
30 days after the effective date, if any, of the action being appealed, or 30 days
after the date of the appellant’s receipt of the agency’s decision, whichever is
later. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1). The appellant has the burden of proving the
timeliness of her Board appeal by a preponderance of the evidence.          5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B).
      The record contains two final decisions by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) denying the appellant’s application for an annuity under the
Federal   Employee’s     Retirement   System,    dated   August    31,   2018,   and
October 11, 2018, respectively. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 9-10, Tab 7 at
7-8. The appellant claimed that she received OPM’s final decision on October
11, 2018. IAF, Tab 1 at 4. Even assuming this was the first time the appellant
received OPM’s final decision, her appeal would nonetheless be due on
November 13, 2018, thirty days from its receipt after accounting for the weekend
                                                                                      3

and   Veteran’s     Day    holiday,    which     fell   on   November      12,    2018.
5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.23 (explaining that if a filing
deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is extended to the following
workday).    The appellant filed her appeal by mail on December 31, 2018.
IAF, Tab 1 at 11. It appears that she separately faxed a copy of OPM’s final
decision to the regional office in early February 2019. Id. at 8-11. In the initial
decision, the administrative judge found that the appellant filed her appeal by
facsimile on February 7, 2019, and thus, factoring in the partial Government
shutdown of 2018-19, her appeal was untimely by 55 days.                  IAF, Tab 8,
Initial Decision at 2.     This calculation was erroneous because it failed to
recognize that the appellant mailed her appeal on December 31, 2018. IAF, Tab 1
at 11; see Williams v. U.S. Postal Service, 61 M.S.P.R. 213, 215 (1994)
(finding that the Board considers the postmark date to be the date of filing of a
mailed submission); 5 C.F.R. § 1201(l) (stating the same rule). Correcting this
error to reflect that the appellant filed her appeal on December 31, 2018,
she nonetheless untimely filed her initial appeal by 41 days, after accounting for
the partial Government shutdown and the Christmas holiday. Accordingly, the
administrative judge’s error was harmless.        See Panter v. Department of the
Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding an adjudicatory error which is
not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights is no basis for reversal of the initial
decision).

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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

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

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).
      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. 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
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
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
                                                                                       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.

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