UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
BILLY DON BLACKSHIRE, DOCKET NUMBERS Appellant, SF-0752-24-0705-I-1 SF-0353-25-0090-I-1 v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: June 11, 2026 AFFAIRS, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Billy Don Blackshire , Severance, Colorado, pro se.
Scott MacMillan , Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona, for the agency.
BEFORE
Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman James J. Woodruff II, Member
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision sustaining his removal and a petition for review of the initial decision dismissing his restoration appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 erroneous application of the law to
1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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
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 these appeals, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petitions for review. Therefore, we JOIN the appeals, 2 DENY the petitions for review, and AFFIRM the initial decisions, which are now the Board’s final decisions. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). On review, the appellant argues, among other things, that the agency improperly denied him law enforcement officer special retirement coverage, improperly withheld grade/pay retention, and violated numerous statutes, to include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the First Responders Fair RETIRE Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335) (USERRA), by refusing to reassign him to a higher-graded position in a different job series. Blackshire v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-24-0705-I-1, Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 7-10, Tab 2 at 6-8, Tab 3 at 5-8. 3 To the extent that the appellant alleges that the agency’s failure to reassign him to a higher-graded position constituted a denial of reasonable accommodation, the agency is not required to promote an employee as part of the reasonable
2 Though adjudicated separately below, we join the two appeals on review because the claims arise from the same agency actions, the facts are interrelated, and joinder will expediate processing without adversely affecting the interests of the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36(b). 3 The appellant’s petitions for reviews in both appeals are identical, and thus, for clarity purposes, we cite only to submissions on review in Blackshire v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-24-0705-I-1. 3
accommodation process. See Gonzalez-Acosta v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 277, ¶ 14 (2010) (explaining that an agency is not required to promote an individual in order to provide reasonable accommodation). Further, the appellant has cited no evidence that he raised a USERRA claim before the administrative judge, and we decline to consider the argument for the first time on review. 4 See Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (finding that the Board generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence). Finally, with respect to the appellant’s arguments regarding his retirement and pay retention claims, such arguments are immaterial to the salient issues in these appeals. 5 Therefore, the appellant has provided no basis to disturb the initial decisions.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6 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
4 The appellant may file a separate USERRA appeal with the appropriate regional office. See 38 U.S.C. § 4324(b). We express no opinion as to the Board’s jurisdiction over, or his likelihood of prevailing, in such an appeal. 5 Should the appellant wish to pursue an appeal related to administrative decisions or actions impacting his retirement benefits, he may file a separate appeal with the appropriate regional office. 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(1) (providing for Board appeals of determinations affecting an individual's rights or interests under Federal Employees’ Retirement System); see Adams v. Department of Defense, 688 F.3d 1330, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that the Board has jurisdiction over an employing agency’s decision affecting the rights or interests of an individual under the retirement statutes). We express no opinion as to the timeliness, the Board’s jurisdiction, or the appellant’s likelihood of prevailing in such an appeal. 6 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. 4
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
BILLY DON BLACKSHIRE, DOCKET NUMBERS Appellant, SF-0752-24-0705-I-1 SF-0353-25-0090-I-1 v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: June 11, 2026 AFFAIRS, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Billy Don Blackshire , Severance, Colorado, pro se.
Scott MacMillan , Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona, for the agency.
BEFORE
Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman James J. Woodruff II, Member
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision sustaining his removal and a petition for review of the initial decision dismissing his restoration appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 erroneous application of the law to
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
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 these appeals, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petitions for review. Therefore, we JOIN the appeals, 2 DENY the petitions for review, and AFFIRM the initial decisions, which are now the Board’s final decisions. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). On review, the appellant argues, among other things, that the agency improperly denied him law enforcement officer special retirement coverage, improperly withheld grade/pay retention, and violated numerous statutes, to include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the First Responders Fair RETIRE Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335) (USERRA), by refusing to reassign him to a higher-graded position in a different job series. Blackshire v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-24-0705-I-1, Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 7-10, Tab 2 at 6-8, Tab 3 at 5-8. 3 To the extent that the appellant alleges that the agency’s failure to reassign him to a higher-graded position constituted a denial of reasonable accommodation, the agency is not required to promote an employee as part of the reasonable
2 Though adjudicated separately below, we join the two appeals on review because the claims arise from the same agency actions, the facts are interrelated, and joinder will expediate processing without adversely affecting the interests of the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36(b). 3 The appellant’s petitions for reviews in both appeals are identical, and thus, for clarity purposes, we cite only to submissions on review in Blackshire v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-24-0705-I-1. 3
accommodation process. See Gonzalez-Acosta v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 277, ¶ 14 (2010) (explaining that an agency is not required to promote an individual in order to provide reasonable accommodation). Further, the appellant has cited no evidence that he raised a USERRA claim before the administrative judge, and we decline to consider the argument for the first time on review. 4 See Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (finding that the Board generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence). Finally, with respect to the appellant’s arguments regarding his retirement and pay retention claims, such arguments are immaterial to the salient issues in these appeals. 5 Therefore, the appellant has provided no basis to disturb the initial decisions.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6 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
4 The appellant may file a separate USERRA appeal with the appropriate regional office. See 38 U.S.C. § 4324(b). We express no opinion as to the Board’s jurisdiction over, or his likelihood of prevailing, in such an appeal. 5 Should the appellant wish to pursue an appeal related to administrative decisions or actions impacting his retirement benefits, he may file a separate appeal with the appropriate regional office. 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(1) (providing for Board appeals of determinations affecting an individual's rights or interests under Federal Employees’ Retirement System); see Adams v. Department of Defense, 688 F.3d 1330, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that the Board has jurisdiction over an employing agency’s decision affecting the rights or interests of an individual under the retirement statutes). We express no opinion as to the timeliness, the Board’s jurisdiction, or the appellant’s likelihood of prevailing in such an appeal. 6 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. 4
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: 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 5
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 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, 6
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 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. 7 The court of appeals must receive your
7 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, 7
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.
132 Stat. 1510. 8
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.