Juan B. Wilkins v. Office of Personnel Management

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
JUAN B. WILKINS, DOCKET NUMBER
Petitioner, CB-1205-16-0020-U-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: September 22, 2016
MANAGEMENT,
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *
Juan B. Wilkins, Natchez, Mississippi, pro se.
John P. Gniadek and Robin Jacobsohn, Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
Mark A. Robbins, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The petitioner asks the Board to conduct a regulation review of a policy of
his former employer, the Pentagon Federal Police Agency (PFPA), which he
alleges has denied him due process and the equal protection of the laws. For the
*
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
reasons discussed below, we DENY the petitioner’s request for lack of
jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
¶2 The Board has original jurisdiction to review rules and regulations
promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 5 U.S.C. § 1204(f).
The Board is authorized to declare an OPM rule or regulation invalid on its face
if the Board determines that the provision would, if implemented by an agency,
require any employee to commit a prohibited personnel practice as defined
by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). See 5 U.S.C. § 1204(f)(2)(A). Similarly, the Board has
the authority to determine that an OPM regulation has been invalidly
implemented by an agency if the Board determines that the provision, as
implemented, has required any employee to commit a prohibited personnel
practice. 5 U.S.C. § 1204(f)(2)(B).
¶3 The Board’s regulations require an individual requesting a regulation
review to identify the challenged OPM regulation. This is part of the information
that is required to state a case within the Board’s jurisdiction. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1203.11(b)(1). Here, the petitioner is challenging PFPA Policy 5525.02, an
agency rule that he asserts adversely affects retired Pentagon Federal police
officers in that it excludes such individuals who retired prior to 2002 from the
agency’s data bank of retired officers. Because the petitioner is not challenging
an OPM regulation, or an agency action implementing such a regulation, his
claim is not one within the Board’s regulation review jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
§ 1204(f). Accordingly, the petitioner’s request for regulation review is denied.
3
¶4 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1203.12(b)
(5 C.F.R. § 1203.12(b)).
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Jennifer Everling
Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.