Angela Harvey v. Department of the Air Force ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
    ANGELA HARVEY,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
    Appellant,                          DC-315H-19-0486-I-1
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                    DATE: February 23, 2024
    Agency.
    THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
    Angela Harvey , St. Leonard, Maryland, pro se.
    Jonathan Mott and Trinh G. Warner , Joint Base Andrews, Maryland,
    for the agency.
    BEFORE
    Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
    Raymond A. Limon, Member
    FINAL ORDER
    The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
    dismissed her termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing.
    Generally, we grant petitions such as these 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
    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    A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
    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 appellant 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). For the reasons
    discussed below, we FORWARD the appellant’s claim of whistleblower reprisal
    to the regional office with instructions for the administrative judge to docket a
    new Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal.
    BACKGROUND
    Effective   May 1,    2017,    the   agency    awarded    the   appellant    a
    career-conditional appointment to the competitive service position of GS -07
    Contract Specialist, subject to a 2-year initial probationary period. Initial Appeal
    File (IAF), Tab 1 at 7-8. On April 24, 2019, the agency terminated the appellant
    for post-appointment reasons under 
    5 C.F.R. § 315.804
    . 
    Id. at 11-13
    . On May 6,
    2019, the appellant filed a Board appeal and requested a hearing, challenging the
    merits of her termination and arguing that her termination was in reprisal for
    whistleblowing and equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity.          
    Id. at 2-5
    .
    She attached a copy of a whistleblower complaint that she had filed with the
    Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that same day. 
    Id. at 14-25
    .
    The administrative judge issued a jurisdictional order, notifying the
    appellant of the standards for proving Board jurisdiction over her appeal under
    5 U.S.C. chapter 75, 5 C.F.R. part 315, subpart H, and the Whistleblower
    3
    Protection Act (WPA). IAF, Tab 3 at 2-6. He ordered her to file evidence and
    argument on the jurisdictional issue.     
    Id. at 6
    .   After the appellant failed to
    respond within the deadline, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
    dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing.      IAF, Tab 5,
    Initial Decision (ID).   The administrative judge found that the Board lacks
    jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 because the appellant did not fit the
    definition of “employee” under 
    5 U.S.C. § 7511
    (a)(1)(A). ID at 3-5. He found
    that the Board lacks jurisdiction under 
    5 C.F.R. § 315.806
     because the appellant
    did not allege that her termination was based on partisan political reasons or
    marital status, and he found that the Board lacks jurisdiction under the WPA
    because the appellant had not yet exhausted her administrative remedies with
    OSC. ID at 5 & n.4. The administrative judge further found that, to the extent
    that the appellant was claiming that her termination was based on other prohibited
    personnel practices, the Board lacks jurisdiction over such claims absent an
    otherwise appealable action. ID at 5-6.
    The appellant has filed a petition for review, arguing that, under agency
    regulations, her probationary period should have been 1 year rather than 2 years,
    and otherwise challenging the merits of the termination.       Petition for Review
    (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 9. She has attached numerous documents to her petition for
    review form. 
    Id. at 10-134
    . The agency has not filed a response.
    ANALYSIS
    At the outset, we find that the appellant should have submitted to the
    administrative judge the evidence and argument that she now submits for the first
    time on review. Under 
    5 C.F.R. § 1201.115
    , the Board will not consider evidence
    or argument presented for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing
    that it was previously unavailable despite the party’s due diligence.     Banks v.
    Department of the Air Force, 
    4 M.S.P.R. 268
    , 271 (1980); Avansino v. U.S.
    Postal Service, 
    3 M.S.P.R. 211
    , 214 (1980). The appellant has made no such
    4
    showing here. 2 Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances of this case, we
    find it appropriate to waive the regulatory requirement and consider the
    appellant’s late-raised evidence and argument. See 
    5 C.F.R. § 1201.12
    .
    The appellant does not challenge the administrative judge’s findings as
    they pertain to the Board’s jurisdiction under 
    5 U.S.C. § 315.806
     or the WPA.
    For the reasons explained in the initial decision, we agree with these findings. ID
    at 5 & n.2; see Calixto v. Department of Defense, 
    120 M.S.P.R. 557
    , ¶¶ 20-21
    (2014); Williams v. Department of Defense, 
    96 M.S.P.R. 335
    , ¶ 14 (2004). To the
    extent that the appellant is contesting the administrative judge’s jurisdictional
    findings regarding her discrimination and EEO retaliation claims, PFR File, Tab 1
    at 9, we agree with the administrative judge that these do not provide an
    independent source of Board jurisdiction, ID at 5-6; see Wren v. Department of
    the Army, 
    2 M.S.P.R. 1
    , 2 (1980), aff’d, 
    681 F.2d 867
    , 871-73 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
    Regarding the Board’s chapter 75 jurisdiction, the appellant argues that she
    fits the definition of “employee” under 
    5 U.S.C. § 7511
    (a)(1)(A)(i) because she
    had already completed her 1-year probationary period at the time of her
    termination. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9. Tacitly acknowledging the requirement of
    
    10 U.S.C. §§ 111
    (b) and 1599e(a), that competitive service appointees in the
    military departments serve a 2-year probationary period, the appellant argues that
    Air Force Instruction 36-1001 § 3.1 provides that “[e]mployees who receive a
    career or career-conditional appointment, and who have not previously completed
    probation serve a one-year probationary period.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 9, 23. We
    find, however, that this Air Force Instruction conflicts with the statute, which
    2
    Among the documents that the appellant has submitted are several Inspector General
    complaints that she filed after the close of the record below. PFR File, Tab 1 at 86-91.
    Although these documents may have been previously unavailable, the information
    contained in them was not. To constitute new and material evidence, the information
    contained in the documents, not just the documents themselves, must have been
    unavailable despite due diligence when the record closed. Grassell v. Department of
    Transportation, 
    40 M.S.P.R. 554
    , 564 (1989).
    5
    imposes a mandatory 2-year probationary period. 10 U.S.C. § 1599e(a). 3 The
    statute allows for the probationary period to be extended, but it does not allow for
    it to be shortened. Id. Where there is an affirmative conflict between a statute
    and an agency rule or regulation, the Board will follow the statute. Johnson v.
    Department of Justice, 
    71 M.S.P.R. 59
    , 67 (1996). We therefore agree with the
    administrative judge that because the agency terminated the appellant within
    2 years of her appointment, she was not an “employee” with chapter 75 appeal
    rights. ID at 3-5 & n.2; see 
    5 U.S.C. § 7511
    (a)(1)(A); 10 U.S.C. § 1599e(a), (d).
    Nevertheless, we find it appropriate at this time to forward this case to the
    administrative judge for consideration as an individual right of action (IRA)
    appeal. The record shows that the appellant filed her OSC complaint on May 6,
    2019, and when the initial decision was issued on May 16, 2019, 120 calendar
    days had not elapsed and the appellant had not shown that OSC had terminated its
    investigation into her allegations. Therefore, the administrative judge correctly
    dismissed the IRA appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Kochanoff v. Department
    of the Treasury, 
    98 M.S.P.R. 405
    , ¶ 6 (2005). However, it is the Board’s practice
    to adjudicate an appeal that was premature when it was filed but becomes ripe
    while pending with the Board. 
    Id., ¶ 7
    . Because more than 120 days have now
    elapsed since the appellant’s May 6, 2019 whistleblower complaint to OSC, her
    whistleblower claim is ripe for adjudication. See 
    5 U.S.C. § 1214
    (a)(3)(B); cf.
    Becker v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 
    107 M.S.P.R. 327
    , ¶¶ 7-8 (2007)
    (remanding an IRA appeal for adjudication that was premature when filed but
    ripened while the appeal was pending).
    Accordingly, we forward the appellant’s IRA claim to the administrative
    judge with instructions to docket a new IRA appeal.
    3
    The 2-year probationary period for DOD employees has been repealed, but only for
    appointments made on or after December 31, 2022. Bryant v. Department of the Army,
    
    2022 MSPB 1
    , ¶ 8.
    6
    NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
    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
    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:
    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.
    7
    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
    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
    8
    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
    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
    9
    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
    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.
    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.
    10
    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:                       ______________________________
    Gina K. Grippando
    Clerk of the Board
    Washington, D.C.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DC-315H-19-0486-I-1

Filed Date: 2/23/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/26/2024