Court Opinion

ID: 9394658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 06:00:09.831397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:01.542389
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

REGINALD H. NORBERG,                            DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        DE-831M-20-0209-X-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 15, 2023
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Reginald H. Norberg, Surprise, Arizona, pro se.

      Tiffany Slade, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member
                           Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
  Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                       2

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1        In a January 6, 2021 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     found that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was not in full compliance
     with Board’s October 16, 2020 final decision, which reversed OPM’s
     reconsideration decision and ordered OPM to waive the $105,091 overpayment on
     the grounds that the appellant was without fault and collection would be
     unconscionable.   Norberg v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket
     No. DE-831M-20-0209-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 4, Compliance Initial Decision
     (CID); Norberg v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-
     831M-20-0209-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 32, Initial Decision. 3 For the reasons
     discussed below, we now find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the
     appellant’s petition for enforcement.

         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2        In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found that the
     agency was not in full compliance with the Board’s final decision because it had
     failed to confirm compliance by informing the appellant of its compliance actions
     and of when it believed compliance was complete. CID at 2. Accordingly, the
     administrative judge ordered the agency to, on or before January 29, 2021,
     provide the appellant with written confirmation that the $105,091 overpayment
     had been waived. Id.
¶3        On January 29, 2021, the agency filed with the Board a statement of
     compliance pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(6)(i).         Norberg v. Office of
     Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-831M-20-0209-X-1, Compliance
     Referral File (CRF), Tab 1. Therein, the agency stated that “In accordance to
     [sic] the MSPB Board decision dated October 16, 2020, Docket DE -831M-20-

     3
       The October 16, 2020 initial decision became the final decision of the Board after
     neither party petitioned for administrative review.
                                                                                           3

     0209-I-1, the overpayment has been waived. No further collection action will be
     taken with respect to this overpayment and we have so noted in the records.” Id.
     at 4.
¶4           On February 1, 2021, the Clerk of the Board issued an acknowledgment
     order notifying the appellant that he could respond to any submission from the
     agency concerning its compliance by filing written arguments with the Board
     within 20 calendar days of the date of service of the agency’s submission. CRF,
     Tab 2. The order also informed the appellant that , if he did not respond to the
     agency’s compliance submission within 20 days, the Board might assume he was
     satisfied and dismiss his petition for enforcement. Id.
¶5           The appellant has filed no response to the agency’s submission, which on its
     face shows compliance, and the period for a timely response has closed.
     Accordingly, we assume he is satisfied.         See Baumgartner v. Department of
     Housing and Urban Development, 111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
¶6           In view of the agency’s statement of compliance and the lack of a response
     from the appellant, we find the agency in compliance and dismiss the petition for
     enforcement. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in
     this compliance proceeding.        Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
     section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
             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

     4
       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

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.
      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
                                                                                   5

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
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
                                                                                      6

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 2 302(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. 5   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

5
   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.
                                                                                   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.

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:                                  /s/ for
                                        Jennifer Everling
                                        Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.