Court Opinion

ID: 9373531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:40.938912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.036128
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CRAIG MILLER,                                     DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                    CH-0353-20-0294-I-2

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                     DATE: July 29, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Craig Miller, Springfield, Ohio, pro se.

           Cynthia R. Allen, Memphis, Tennessee, 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 appeal of the agency’s 2020 denial of his request for restoration 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
      Although the appellant mentioned the agency’s 1994 restoration offer below, he did
     not explicitly argue that it amounted to an arbitrary and capricious denial of restoration
     until his petition for review. Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 3, 5. We construe his
                                                                                       2

and his claim that his 1993 retirement was involuntary for lack of jurisdiction.
On petition for review, the appellant asserts that not having a hearing harmed his
restoration appeal. 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 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, 3
which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

argument to be a request to reopen his 1998 denial of restoration appeal. Miller v. U.S.
Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. CH-0353-98-0521-I-1. In deciding that appeal, the
Board found that it cannot review an Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
(OWCP) determination that a job offer was suitable, and thus, there was no basi s to
grant relief in an appeal premised on a claim that the agency’s job offer was so
unreasonable that it amounted to a denial of restoration. Miller v. U.S. Postal Service,
82 M.S.P.R. 170, ¶¶ 6-8, 10 (1999). In an April 17, 2015 decision, the Employees’
Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) reversed the OWCP determination upon which
the Board relied in its 1999 decision. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9 at 91-99. The
Board will only reopen a case if the appellant has exercised due diligence in seeking
reopening.      McCoy v. U.S. Postal Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 256, ¶ 11 (2009),
aff’d, 360 F. App’x 132 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The appellant has not exercised due diligence
here. He did not bring the April 17, 2015 ECAB decision to the attention of the Board
until the filing of the instant appeal approximately 5 years after its issuance. Thus, we
decline to exercise our discretion to reopen the appeal under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118.
3
  After the initial decision in this appeal was issued, the Board issued a decision in
Cronin v. U.S. Postal Service, 2022 MSPB 13, which clarified when a denial of
restoration may be arbitrary and capricious. The Board in Cronin held that, although
agencies may undertake restoration efforts beyond the minimum effort required by
                                                                                      3

                         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 appe al 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.

OPM under 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d), an agency’s failure to comply with self-imposed
obligations cannot itself constitute a violation of 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d) such that a
resulting denial of restoration would be rendered arbitrary and capricious for purposes
of establishing Board jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 353.304(c). Cronin, 2022 MSPB 13,
¶ 20. Rather, as explained in Cronin, the issue before the Board is limited to whether
the agency failed to comply with the minimum requirement of 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d),
i.e., to search within the local commuting area for vacant positions to which it can
restore a partially recovered employee and to consider him for any such vacancies. See
Cronin, 2022 MSPB 13, ¶ 20 (citing Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 M.S.P.R. 345,
¶ 12 (2010)). For the reasons stated in the initial decision, we find that the agency
complied with the minimum requirement of 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d) and that the appellant
failed to nonfrivolously allege that the agency’s denial of restoration in 2020 was
arbitrary and capricious. IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision at 7-8.
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

      (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
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
                                                                                  5

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, o r 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:
                                                                                      6

                            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. 5   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

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.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                7

      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 web site 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.