James Ryan v. Department of Defense ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
JAMES THOMAS RYAN, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, DC-1221-16-0264-W-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DATE: May 30, 2023
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
James Thomas Ryan, Bel Air, Maryland, pro se.
Elizabeth E. Pavlick, Esquire, and Kevin Greenfield, Esquire, Washington,
D.C., for the agency.
Emilee Collier, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae, Office of
Special Counsel
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision in this
individual right of action (IRA) appeal, which denied his request for corrective
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 id entified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2
action. 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. Except as expressly MODIFIED by
this Final Order to find that the appellant made protected disclosures, we
AFFIRM the initial decision.
BACKGROUND
¶2 The appellant, a Police Officer with the Pentagon Force Protection Agency,
alleged in this IRA appeal that the agency improperly maintained several closed
records of investigations (ROIs) involving him, which he claims represented a
threat of discipline, in reprisal for several alleged protected disclosures, and in
reprisal for activity protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) and (b)(9)(C).
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tabs 1, 5, Tab 83 at 5. The administrative judge found
jurisdiction over the appeal and, after holding a hearing, denied the appellant’s
request for corrective action, finding, among other things, that the appellant failed
to meet his burden to establish by preponderant evidence that h e made a protected
disclosure. IAF, Tab 115, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 7-12.
¶3 Concerning those alleged protected disclosures, the administrative judge
found that a reasonable person in the appellant’s position would not believe that
3
any of the disclosures alleged here evidenced a violation of law, rule, or
regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority,
or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. ID at 7 -12. As
iterated by the administrative judge, the appellant’s disclosures included: (1) his
December 24, 2014 email that a coworker was sleeping on the job and that
another coworker had threatened to stab that coworker in the eye, IAF, Tab 82
at 7; (2) his December 24, 2014 email that a third coworker allegedly had failed
to clear an alarm and his memorandum of the same day reporting that the same
colleague had commented that “every time a law enforcement officer encounters
an African-American, they kill him,” and that such a statement jeopardizes her
security clearance and that she should not have access to sensitive security
information, IAF, Tab 42 at 7-8; (3) his December 26, 2014 memorandum and
subsequent email concerning his supervisor’s statement that the appellant
reportedly was not performing all of his duties, IAF, Tab 14 at 77, 79; and (4) his
January 6, 2015 email and memorandum complaining that a coworker had been
discourteous to him, id. at 81, 116; ID at 3-5.
¶4 Although the administrative judge did find that the appellant established
that he had engaged in activity protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) and
2302(b)(9)(C) by filing IRA appeals and complaints with the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC), she went on to find that the appellant failed to show that this
alleged protected activity contributed to any decision to retain the closed ROIs,
citing testimony that such documents are usually retained indefinitely and the
appellant’s failure to introduce any evidence to show that the individuals
responsible for retaining such documents had any knowledge of his alleged
protected activity. ID at 12-13. She also found that the agency’s decision to
maintain the ROIs was not a personnel action under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A) and
did not constitute a threat of reprisal, citing less-than-preponderant evidence that
the ROIs either could or should have been destroyed and, as noted above, the lack
of any connection between the appellant’s alleged protected activity and any
4
possible decision concerning the retention of the ROIs. ID at 15. Thus, she
found that the indirect risk of future discipline based on the content of the ROIs is
not a threat of discipline that would exempt these circumstances from the general
rule that an investigation, in and of itself, is not a personnel action under 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(a)(2)(A). Id.¶5 In his petition for review, the appellant contests many of the administrative
judge’s factual findings, for example, challenging her characterization of him as
argumentative during one of the episodes at issue in this appeal and instead
insisting that he had “merely informed” the acting floor supervisor that h e was
following orders from his supervisor. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1
at 5-8. He also challenges the administrative judge’s finding that his disclosure
involving a coworker sleeping on duty and a purported stabbing threat was
motivated by interpersonal squabbling, rather than a desire to disclose significant
Government wrongdoing, and argues that his disclosure reasonably showed a
violation of a rule. Id. at 8, 11-12, 16-17; ID at 8. He offers what he describes as
new evidence regarding that disclosure, claiming that the evidence was not
available before the hearing because the administrative judge never asked him
about the full circumstances of the episodes and improperly restricted his hearing
testimony. PFR File, Tab 1 at 11-15. The appellant argues that several agency
witnesses made false statements, explains why he believes that the administrative
judge should have considered whether his supervisor perceived him to be a
whistleblower, and essentially reargues his case. Id. at 9-11, 15-24.
¶6 The agency responded in opposition to the appellant’s petition for review ,
and the appellant filed a reply to the agency’s response. PFR File, Tabs 3 -4.
Additionally, OSC filed a brief as amicus curiae, asserting that the administrative
judge erred in considering the appellant’s motivation in making one of his
disclosures. PFR File, Tab 5. OSC observes that under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(f)(1)(C),
“[a] disclosure shall not be excluded from subsection (b)(8) because . . . of the
employee’s or applicant’s motive for making the disclosure,” and asks the Board
5
to reaffirm that a whistleblower’s motive does not affect whether a disclosure is
protected. Id. at 5-9.
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶7 When reviewing the merits of an IRA appeal, 2 the Board must determine
whether the appellant has established by preponderant evidence that he made a
protected disclosure that was a contributing factor in the agency’s decision to take
or fail to take a personnel action. E.g., Aquino v. Department of Homeland
Security, 121 M.S.P.R. 35, ¶ 10 (2014). A preponderance of the evidence is the
degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a
whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be
true than untrue. Id.; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q). If the appellant meets that burden,
the Board must order corrective action unless the agency can establish by clear
and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in the
absence of the disclosure. Aquino, 121 M.S.P.R. 35, ¶ 10.
The appellant established that he made protected disclosure s.
¶8 The administrative judge found that the appellant’s disclosure s that he
observed a coworker sleeping on duty and overheard another coworker
threatening to stab the first coworker in the eye with a pen were not protected, in
part because the appellant was motivated to get back at the coworkers involved
for a perceived slight, rather than by whistleblowing. ID at 8. In its amicus brief,
OSC correctly points out that the whistleblower statute specifically excludes
considering the motivation of the individual making a disclosure. 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(f)(1)(C); PFR File, Tab 5 at 5-6. Thus, the administrative judge erred in
considering the appellant’s motivation, and we hereby modify that finding. See,
e.g., Johnson v. Department of Defense, 87 M.S.P.R. 454, ¶ 10 (2000) (rejecting
2
The administrative judge found that the appellant established jurisdiction ove r this
IRA appeal. ID at 1. Neither party challenges this finding in a petition for review or
cross petition for review, and we discern no basis to disturb it.
6
an administrative judge’s finding that an employee did not have a reasonable
belief because her activity was motivated by troublemaking). We also agree with
the appellant that a reasonable person in the appellant’s position would believe
that his December 24, 2014 email concerning his observation of a coworker
sleeping on duty evidenced a violation of a rule or regulation. PFR File, Tab 1 at
16-17; see Horton v. Department of the Navy, 66 F.3d 279, 281-83 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (finding protected a disclosure that employees were sleeping on the job),
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Day v. Department of
Homeland Security, 119 M.S.P.R. 589, ¶¶ 14-18 (2013); 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705(a)
(requiring Federal employees to use official time in an honest effort to perform
official duties). The administrative judge erred in finding otherwise , and we find
that this was a protected disclosure.
¶9 The administrative judge also found that the appellant failed to show that
his disclosure that another coworker threatened to stab a coworker in the eye with
a pen was protected. The administrative judge observed that the appellant
described the so-called threat as “apparent empty bragging” and that the appellant
did not believe that the coworker was actually intending to stab the other
coworker. The administrative judge concluded that a reasonable law enforcement
officer in the appellant’s position could not have believed that the threat of
violence constituted a criminal assault. ID at 9. Although the administrative
judge correctly found that the appellant did not hold a reasonable belief that
violence was imminent, we nonetheless find that this disclosure was protected.
As the appellant stated in his petition for review, he thought it constituted
“threatening behavior” toward another Federal employee and that such behavior
constituted a violation of an agency rule. Although the Whistleblower Protection
Act does not define “rule,” it includes established or authoritative standards for
conduct or behavior. See Rusin v. Department of the Treasury, 92 M.S.P.R. 298,
¶¶ 15-17 (2002). Moreover, in making a disclosure involving a violation of law,
rule, or regulation, there is no de minimis exception for disclosures falling within
7
the scope of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A)(i). See Fisher v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 108 M.S.P.R. 296, ¶ 9 (2008); PFR File, Tab 1 at 15. Under the facts and
circumstances of this case, disclosing a threat of violence constituted a protec ted
disclosure.
¶10 Concerning the appellant’s remaining alleged disclosures, we agree with the
administrative judge that the appellant failed to establish that a reasonable person
would believe that his December 24, 2014 disclosure concerning a coworker’s
response to an alarm disclosed a violation of law, rule, or regulation, gross
mismanagement, abuse of authority, or a gross waste of funds. ID at 10. The
appellant identified no authority prescribing a particular rule or protocol, and,
under these circumstances, we find that this is a dispute over policy and
procedure rather than a protected disclosure. See Webb v. Department of the
Interior, 122 M.S.P.R. 248, ¶¶ 7-10 (2015) (holding that a disclosure of a policy
disagreement that does not evidence the kind of misconduct listed in sec tion
2302(b)(8) is not protected). We also agree with the administrative judge that the
appellant’s email purportedly disclosing the same coworker’s opinion regarding
law enforcement officers killing African-Americans was not a protected
disclosure. ID at 10-11. The appellant’s conclusory assertion that his coworker’s
opinion on the issue should jeopardize her security clearance is not a protected
disclosure. Similarly, we agree that a reasonable person would not believe that
the appellant’s purported disclosures of December 26, 2014, and January 6, 2015,
which we find concern his personal interactions with his coworkers, represented a
violation of law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, or
a gross waste of funds. ID at 11-12.
¶11 Thus, we find the appellant made protected disclosures concerning his
coworker sleeping on duty and a coworker threatening to stab another coworker
in the eye with a pen, and we agree with the administrative judge’s finding that
the appellant engaged in activity protected under 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(9)(A)(i)
8
and (b)(9)(C) when he filed IRA appeals and OSC complaints that motivated
some of the investigations at issue in this appeal. ID at 12-13 & n.14.
The appellant failed to identify a personnel action that the agency took in reprisal
for his protected activity.
¶12 As noted above, the administrative judge found that the appellant failed to
show that his protected activity contributed to any personnel action as described
in section 2302(a)(2)(A). ID at 13-15. Indeed, she found no agency actions other
than the investigations themselves, which she properly noted are not generally
found to be personnel actions. ID at 14; see Sistek v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 955 F.3d 948, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Mattil v. Department of State,
118 M.S.P.R. 662, ¶ 21 (2012). Although it is proper to consider evidence
regarding an investigation if it is so closely related to an alleged personnel action
that it would have been a pretext for gathering information to retaliate for
whistleblowing, see Skarada v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 17,
¶ 18 n.4; Mattil, 118 M.S.P.R. 662, ¶ 21, here, we agree with the administrative
judge that the appellant failed to show by preponderant evidence that his
protected whistleblowing activity was a contributing factor in the agency’s
decision to take or fail to take any personnel action against him , ID at 14-16.
¶13 The appellant alleged here that the personnel action at issue is the agency’s
maintenance of the ROIs and the threat of discipline he contends that they
represent. IAF, Tabs 1, 5, Tab 83 at 5. There is no other personnel action for
which the investigations could have been a pretext. Moreover, the record fails to
establish with any specificity the contours of the agency’s policy on the retention
of ROIs. ID at 15. Because there is nothing to indicate that the agency did
anything inconsistent with its normal document retention protocol, the appellant
failed to establish that the agency is improperly retaining the ROIs, much less
that it is doing so in reprisal against him. Furthermore, the appellant established
no connection between his protected activity and the officials in the agency’s
Office of Professional Responsibility who retain authority over the ROIs. ID at
9
15. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the agency’s decision
regarding the retention of the ROIs was in any way affected by the appellant’s
protected activity. We find that the appellant failed to establish that the agency
took, or failed to take, a personnel action against him concerning the ROIs.
Absent an underlying personnel action, we find that the appellant has not shown
that the agency’s investigations were a pretext for retaliation and therefore he has
not shown that the investigations themselves constituted personnel actions.
Skarada, 2022 MSPB 17, ¶ 18 n.4. Because the appellant failed to establish that
the agency took or failed to take a personnel action under 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(a)(2)(A), he has failed to make a prima facie case, and we therefore agree
with the administrative judge’s denial of the appellant’s request for corrective
action. E.g., Aquino, 121 M.S.P.R. 35, ¶ 10; see Wadhwa v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 111 M.S.P.R. 26, ¶ 9, aff’d, 353 F. App’x 434 (Fed. Cir. 2009),
overruled on other grounds by Hau v. Department of Homeland Security,
123 M.S.P.R. 620, ¶ 16 (2016), aff’d sub nom. Bryant v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 878 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
¶14 Lastly, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erroneously
limited the issues adjudicated in the appeal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 21-24. Based on
the appellant’s submissions, the administrative judge iterated the issues, as set
forth above, in her prehearing conference summary. IAF, Tab 83 at 5. The
appellant subsequently submitted a list of objections to the prehearing conference
summary, and the administrative judge granted his motion to reconsider her
denial of two of his witnesses, but he did not specifically contest the
administrative judge’s summary of the issues. IAF, Tabs 87-88. An issue is not
properly before the Board when it is not included in the administrative judge’s
memorandum summarizing the prehearing conference, which states that no other
issues will be considered, unless either party objects to the exclusion of that issue
in the summary. Crowe v. Small Business Administration, 53 M.S.P.R. 631,
634-35 (1992). The administrative judge afforded the parties 5 days to lodge
10
their objections to the prehearing conference summary, IAF, Tab 83 at 8, and the
record reflects that the appellant failed to do so concerning the issues set forth
therein.
¶15 The appellant also asserts that the administrative judge should have
considered whether the agency perceived him as a whistleblower. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 22. In that regard, he also contends that the agency “failed to act on the
evidence [he] presented in an effort to discredit [him] because they perceived the
information as a protected disclosure.” Id. at 19. When an appellant argues that
an agency perceived him as a whistleblower, the Board analyzes the question of
whether the appellant made a protected disclosure in a different fashion, asking
whether agency officials believed that the appellant made or inten ded to make a
disclosure, not whether the appellant reasonably believed he made a protected
disclosure. E.g., King v. Department of the Army, 116 M.S.P.R. 689, ¶ 8 (2011).
In such a case, whether the appellant actually made a protected disclosure is
immaterial, and the issue of whether the agency perceived him as a whistleblower
essentially stands in for that portion of the analysis. Id. Nevertheless, such
analysis has no effect on the other issues in the IRA appeal. Id., ¶ 9. Even if the
appellant could establish that the agency perceived him as a whistleblower, it
would not change our determination that he failed to establish that the agency
took or failed to take a personnel action under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A) in
reprisal for his protected activity. ID at 14-15.
¶16 Moreover, rather than identify the other issues that the administrative judge
allegedly should have adjudicated, the appellant instead reargues the episode in
which one of his coworkers threatened to stab the other with a pen. PFR File ,
Tab 1 at 22-24. He contends that the administrative judge improperly limited his
testimony on the issue and implies that she was biased against him. Id. at 22. We
disagree. Our review of the transcript indicates that the administrative judge
instead sought to assist the appellant, who was pro se in this matter, with his
direct testimony on the issue by asking him questions. Hearing Transcript,
11
Apr. 28, 2016, at 11-12, 18-22. In making a claim of bias or prejudice against an
administrative judge, a party must overcome the presumption of honesty and
integrity that accompanies administrative adjudicators. Oliver v. Department of
Transportation, 1 M.S.P.R. 382, 386 (1980). In addition, an administrative
judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new
adjudication only if the administrative judge’s comments or actions evidence “a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment imp ossible.”
Bieber v. Department of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Here, the appellant
fails to overcome the presumption, and the record does not indicate that any of
the administrative judge’s actions evidence such favoritism.
¶17 Accordingly, we affirm the decision as modified herein.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
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 an d
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
3
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.
12
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
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Fede ral Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
13
(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 discri mination 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:
14
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. 4 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).
4
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.
15
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.
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.