Court Opinion

ID: 9373361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:26.962083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.155531
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ASHRAF A. ELSAYED,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        AT-0752-21-0114-I-2

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: September 29, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Ashraf A. Elsayed, Jacksonville, Florida, pro se.

           Kelley Thomas and Matthew McCoy, Millington, 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
     affirmed his removal from Federal service. 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 agency did not commit harmful procedural error, we
     AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         On review, the appellant reasserts many of the same arguments that he
     raised before the administrative judge.     In addition, he asserts the following
     arguments:   (1) the administrative judge erred in cancelling the hearing as a
     sanction; (2) the agency’s denial of his request for leave without pay (LWOP)
     violated agency policy and policy set forth by the Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM); (3) his second-level supervisor retaliated against him for
     filing an equal employment opportunity complaint; (4) he did not receive hard
     copies of the notice of proposed removal or the decision; and (5) the agency did
     not allow him to present an oral reply. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1
     at 5-6. The Board’s regulations state that an appellant may not raise a new claim
     after the prehearing conference without good cause shown.                  5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.24(b). There is no evidence that the appellant raised claims 3 through 5
     prior to, or at, the prehearing conference in this appeal. Elsayed v. Department of
     the Army, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-21-0114-I-2, Refiled Appeal File (RAF),
     Tab 26. We therefore decline to consider them on review. For the reasons stated
     herein, we find the appellant’s remaining arguments unavailing.
                                                                                      3

¶3         An administrative judge may impose sanctions as necessary to serve the
     ends of justice, which includes the right to sanction a party for failure to comply
     with an order. Heckman v. Department of the Interior, 106 M.S.P.R. 210, ¶ 8
     (2007); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.43. An administrative judge may cancel a requested
     hearing for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.43(e). Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, the Board will not reverse
     an administrative judge’s determination regarding sanctions. See Montgomery v.
     Department of the Army, 80 M.S.P.R. 435, ¶ 17 (1998). Here, the appellant failed
     to respond to the agency’s written discovery requests. RAF, Tab 10 at 1. The
     administrative judge ordered him to file responses, and after he failed to comply,
     the administrative judge sanctioned the appellant by prohibiting him from
     introducing certain evidence into the record. RAF, Tab 10 at 1, Tab 21 at 1. In
     the same order, the administrative judge instructed the appellant to appear for a
     telephonic deposition within 10 days, noting that he had failed to appear for
     multiple scheduled depositions.    RAF, Tab 21 at 1.      The appellant failed to
     comply with the order, and the administrative judge sanctioned the appellant by
     cancelling his requested hearing. RAF, Tab 26 at 1-2. The administrative judge
     considered the appellant’s assertion that he could have appeared for the
     deposition if the agency had provided him with a prepaid telecommunications
     card and found it to be unpersuasive given the appellant’s failure to raise this
     request prior to the scheduled deposition. RAF, Tab 23 at 15-18, 24-32, Tab 26
     at 1-2. We agree. The appellant was on notice that his conduct could result in
     sanctions, and we therefore find that the administrative judge did not a buse his
     discretion in cancelling the hearing. E.g., RAF, Tab 10 at 1, Tab 15 at 4, Tab 19
     at 4, Tab 21 at 1-2, Tab 23 at 4; see Heckman, 106 M.S.P.R. 210, ¶¶ 8-12 (finding
     that the administrative judge did not abuse her discretion in cancelling an
     appellant’s hearing after she failed to comply with three , separate orders despite
     being warned of possible sanctions).
                                                                                        4

¶4         Next, the appellant asserts that the agency violated its own policy when his
     request for LWOP was denied by his second-level supervisor instead of the
     Director. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, 11-12. Although unclear, the appellant may have
     attempted to raise this argument before the administrative judge. E.g., Elsayed v.
     Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-21-0114-I-1, Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 1 at 4. The appellant has not filed a copy of an agency policy
     requiring the Director to approve or disapprove an employee’s request for LWOP.
     Even assuming the agency had such a policy, and to the extent the appellant
     claims that the agency committed harmful procedural error, he has not shown that
     the Director likely would have approved the appellant’s request. See Stephen v.
     Department of the Air Force, 47 M.S.P.R. 672, 681, 685 (1991) (explaining that
     the Board will reverse an action for harmful error if the appellant shows that the
     procedural error likely would have caused the agency to reach a different
     conclusion in the absence or cure of the error); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(r).           The
     appellant also asserts, without explanation, that the agency’s denial of his request
     for LWOP violated “OPM rules of leave/emergency.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 5; RAF,
     Tab 18 at 16.     The appellant has not provided a copy of the policy he is
     referencing, and he has not explained how he believes the agency violated OPM’s
     policy. See Tines v. Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992)
     (stating that a petition for review must contain sufficient specificity to enable the
     Board to ascertain whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge justifying a
     complete review of the record). Accordingly, we modify the initial decision to
     find that the agency did not commit harmful procedural error regarding alleged
     violations of agency and OPM policy.
¶5        Finally, we address the documents attached to the appellant’s petition for
     review. The Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for the first
     time with a petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the
     record was closed before the administrative judge despite the party’s due
     diligence.   Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 213-14 (1980).
                                                                                           5

     Many of the documents submitted with the appellant’s petition for review were
     submitted to the administrative judge, and thus, they are not new. See Meier v.
     Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980).             To the extent the
     appellant has filed any documents that were not filed before the administrative
     judge, he has not explained why the documents were unavailable prior to the
     close of the record, and thus, we do not consider them.
¶6         We have considered the appellant’s remaining arguments and find they do
     not warrant disturbing the findings in the initial decision. We therefore deny the
     petition for review and affirm 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
     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

     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.
                                                                                          6

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 partic ular
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
                                                                                  7

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. ____ , 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, 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
                                                                                       8

      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 descri bed 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
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:

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 b y 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 c ompetent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                9

                             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.
      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.