John Paul Jones, III v. Department of Health and Human Services ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
    JOHN PAUL JONES, III,                           DOCKET NUMBER
    Appellant,                         DE-3330-14-0526-I-1
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND                        DATE: March 13, 2015
    HUMAN SERVICES,
    Agency.
    THIS FINAL ORDER IS NO NPRECEDENTIAL 1
    John Paul Jones, III, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pro se.
    James E. Simpson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.
    BEFORE
    Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
    Mark A. Robbins, Member
    FINAL ORDER
    ¶1        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
    denied his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment
    Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Generally, we grant petitions such as this
    one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
    1
    A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
    sign ificantly 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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. See 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, and based on the following points and authorities, 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).
    ¶2        The appellant, a 5-point (TP) preference-eligible veteran, applied for a
    GS-15 Public Health Analyst position under the agency’s Delegated Examining
    (DE) Vacancy Announcement No. HHS-OMH-DE-14-1052798, which was open
    to United States citizens. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 10 at 12, Tab 11 at 8-9.
    The agency announced its intention to fill one vacancy and informed applicants of
    a separate merit promotion announcement by stating that:
    This vacancy is also being announc[ed] concurrently with vacancy
    announcement HHS-OMH-MP-14-1052799 under merit promotion
    procedures. Please review that announcement to see if you are
    eligible to apply under those procedures. NOTE: Applicants must
    apply separately for each announcement.
    IAF, Tab 10 at 12. It is undisputed that the appellant applied only under the DE
    announcement. See IAF, Tab 12 at 1.
    ¶3        The agency informed applicants that it would use the category rating
    procedure to rank and select eligible candidates under the DE announcement and
    to assign qualified candidates to the categories of “Best Qualified,” “Well
    Qualified,” and “Qualified.” IAF, Tab 10 at 14. The agency also explained that
    3
    it would apply veterans’ preference by placing preference eligibles at the top of
    their assigned category and considering them before nonpreference eligibles in
    that category. 
    Id. at 15
    . It is undisputed that the appellant was rated as one of the
    two Best Qualified veterans on the DE certificate referred to the selecting
    official. IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID) at 4, Tab 11 at 5, 12. However, the
    agency selected a candidate to fill the Public Health Analyst position from one of
    the merit promotion certificates referred to the selection official. IAF, Tab 11 at
    16; ID at 2.
    ¶4          The appellant filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) and
    alleged that the agency did not properly consider his veterans’ preference. See
    IAF, Tab 1 at 4, 8. DOL investigated but concluded that the evidence did not
    support the appellant’s allegation that the agency violated his veterans’
    preference rights.    
    Id. at 8
    .    In its letter informing the appellant of its
    investigative results, DOL stated that the evidence indicated that the agency filled
    the position from the merit promotion certificate generated from the merit
    promotion announcement; the appellant applied under the concurrent DE
    announcement, but the agency had the legal right to select from any certificate to
    fill the position. See 
    id.
     The appellant subsequently filed this VEOA appeal with
    the Board and requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1 at 2.
    ¶5          On appeal, the appellant argued that the agency’s selection process violated
    his veterans’ preference rights by “not fairly testing the applicants” and by not
    crediting his military experience. 
    Id. at 5
    . The appellant also argued that the
    selection process was unlawful because the individual selected from the merit
    promotion certificate had “a personal relationship with the hiring authority” and
    the agency screened out applicants over 60. 
    Id.
     In support of his appeal, the
    appellant submitted a copy of the DOL file closure letter and the notice he
    received from USA Jobs stating that the agency did not select him. IAF, Tab 1 at
    7-8.   The appellant also submitted an email providing details of past hiring
    actions by the agency concerning vacancy announcements unrelated to the instant
    4
    appeal. IAF, Tab 6 at 4, 8-9. Citing that email and an unrelated Board decision,
    the appellant argued that the Board’s rulings strongly support veterans’
    preference rights and that the agency has an institutional culture that openly
    violates those rights. 
    Id. at 4-5
    .
    ¶6         The agency filed a motion to dismiss the appellant’s VEOA appeal and
    provided supplemental evidence ordered by the administrative judge to confirm
    that the agency made its selection under the merit certificate and not the DE
    certificate under which the appellant applied. IAF, Tabs 5, 10-11, Tab 9 at 5-7.
    The appellant did not respond to the agency’s motion to dismiss.
    ¶7         Without holding the hearing requested by the appellant, the administrative
    judge issued an initial decision denying the appellant’s request for corrective
    action under VEOA. ID at 1-2. The administrative judge found that there was no
    genuine dispute of material fact and that the agency did not violate the appellant’s
    rights under VEOA by exercising its managerial judgment and selecting a
    candidate from the merit promotion certificate. ID at 1, 4. For the purposes of
    the decision, the administrative judge considered as true the appellant’s allegation
    that the selecting official knew the selected applicant, and he found no
    impropriety in the selection. ID at 4. The administrative judge also found, inter
    alia, that he had no authority to consider the agency’s past hiring actions in
    deciding this VEOA appeal. ID at 4.
    ¶8         The appellant filed a petition for review asking the Board to remand the
    appeal to the field office with instructions to hold a hearing for the agency to
    explain its hiring decision.    Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 27.     In
    support of his request, the appellant reasserts his argument that the agency has a
    pattern and practice of denying veterans’ legal rights and that the agency has a
    “moral and legal obligation to hire the veteran.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5, Tab 6 at
    4 (emphasis in original).
    ¶9         To be entitled to relief under VEOA, the appellant must prove by
    preponderant evidence that the agency’s selection violated one or more of his
    5
    statutory or regulatory veterans’ preference rights.      Dale v. Department of
    Veterans Affairs, 
    102 M.S.P.R. 646
    , ¶ 10 (2006).      Contrary to the appellant’s
    arguments on review, VEOA does not guarantee the preference-eligible appellant
    a position; the statute only affords him the right to compete for the position. See
    Abell v. Department of the Navy, 
    92 M.S.P.R. 397
    , 400-01 (2002), aff’d, 
    343 F.3d 1378
     (Fed. Cir. 2003).    The Board may decide a VEOA claim on the merits
    without a hearing when there is no genuine issue of material fact and one party
    must prevail as a matter of law. Davis v. Department of Defense, 
    105 M.S.P.R. 604
    , ¶ 12 (2007).
    ¶10        The appellant has not shown that the agency violated his veterans’
    preference rights in this case when it made its selection from the merit promotion
    certificate issued pursuant to the merit promotion announcement, for which he did
    not apply.   An agency has the discretion to fill a vacant position by any
    authorized method, and the Board has held that there is nothing preventing an
    agency from soliciting applications from the public and from merit promotion
    applicants simultaneously and filing the vacant position from the merit promotion
    certificate. See Joseph v. Federal Trade Commission, 
    505 F.3d 1380
    , 1384 (Fed.
    Cir. 2007) (finding that the agency did not violate VEOA by conducting
    “simultaneous parallel procedures under the competitive examination and merit
    promotion processes to fill the same position” and selecting someone other than
    the veteran under the merit promotion process); Dean v. Consumer Product Safety
    Commission, 
    108 M.S.P.R. 137
    , ¶ 11 (2008). Moreover, the appellant has not
    shown that the agency denied his right to compete under the DE vacancy
    announcement at issue, considering the undisputed evidence that his name was on
    the certificate of “Best Qualified” candidates referred to the selecting officials.
    IAF, Tab 11 at 5, 12.
    ¶11        Having considered the appellant’s arguments on review, we find no new,
    previously unavailable evidence and that the administrative judge made no error
    6
    in law or regulation that affects the outcome. 2 We therefore deny the appellant’s
    petition for review.
    NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
    YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
    You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United
    States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to
    the court at the following address:
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    717 Madison Place, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20439
    The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar
    days after the date of this order. See 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec.
    27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has
    held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline
    and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See
    Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 
    931 F.2d 1544
     (Fed. Cir. 1991).
    If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
    court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
    Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    ) (as rev. eff.
    Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United
    States   Code,    at   our    website,    http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm.
    Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov.
    Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and
    2
    We are not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the administrative judge
    “committed legal error in accepting the Agency’s word that the selecting official”
    lawfully hired from the merit promotion certificate. PFR File, Tab 1 at 17. The record
    reflects that the administrative judge ordered the agency to submit proof that it filled
    the Public Health Analyst position with a candidate from the merit promotion
    certificate; the agency submitted the requested documents; and the administrative judge
    considered that evidence in making his decision. ID at 4; IAF, Tabs 5, 10, Tab 11 at 2.
    7
    Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5,
    6, and 11.
    If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your court
    appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of
    attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for
    Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. The Merit Systems
    Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor
    warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
    FOR THE BOARD:                            ______________________________
    William D. Spencer
    Clerk of the Board
    Washington, D.C.