Holmes v. Army

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 25-1541
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TYSHA S. HOLMES, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent ______________________

2025-1541 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in Nos. AT-0752-11-0263-C-1, AT-0752-11-0263-X-1. ______________________

Decided: March 12, 2026 ______________________

TYSHA S. HOLMES, Lexington, SC, pro se.

JOSHUA DAVID TULLY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD, PATRICIA MCCARTHY, BRETT A. SHUMATE. ______________________

Before CHEN, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2026

Tysha S. Holmes petitions for review from the Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) find- ing the Army in compliance with the Board’s previous or- der. That prior order mandated the Army to halt efforts to recoup interim relief payments from Ms. Holmes for the pe- riod between December 15, 2013 and July 9, 2014. See SAppx 1–12, 167–68. 1 For the following reasons, we af- firm. BACKGROUND Ms. Holmes was employed by the Army as a Physician Assistant in Fort Jackson, South Carolina. SAppx 216. The Army removed her from her position on November 17, 2010 for failing to follow instructions, disrespectful behav- ior towards her supervisor, insubordination, and unauthor- ized disclosure of medical quality assurance information. Id. at 194–95, 216–18. An administrative judge reversed Ms. Holmes’s removal, finding that Ms. Holmes’s due pro- cess rights were violated “when the deciding official consid- ered [her] prior disciplinary record without providing her notice . . . and an opportunity to respond.” Id. at 222. The administrative judge, however, permitted the Army to “re- institute a disciplinary action employing constitutionally correct procedures.” Id. In the meantime, the administra- tive judge ordered the Army to (1) restore Ms. Holmes to her position retroactive to November 17, 2010, (2) pay backpay with interest, (3) adjust benefits with appropriate credits and deductions, and (4) “provide interim re- lief . . . in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(2)(A).” Id. at 222–23. The Army filed a petition for review of this initial deci- sion, which the Board granted on July 9, 2014. SAppx 204– 05. The Board reversed the initial decision and remanded

1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix filed with the gov- ernment’s informal brief. Dkt. No. 16. Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 03/12/2026

HOLMES v. ARMY 3

the case for a decision on the merits of the removal action. Id. at 211. In the same decision, the Board also explained that the Army was excused from distributing interim relief payments to Ms. Holmes when she was already receiving compensation from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Id. at 205 n.2. The Board explained that simultaneously receiving OWCP compensation and in- terim relief payments would contravene 5 U.S.C. § 8116(a), which prohibits employees receiving OWCP compensation from “receiv[ing] salary, pay, or remuneration of any type from the United States” except under certain conditions not relevant here. Id. On remand, an administrative judge affirmed Ms. Holmes’s removal, SAppx 170–71, and the Board then affirmed the administrative judge’s findings, SAppx 97–98. In a separate Board proceeding, Ms. Holmes filed a pe- tition for enforcement, contending that the Army had im- permissibly initiated a collection action to recoup the interim relief payments she received. SAppx 13. An ad- ministrative judge granted in part and denied in part Ms. Holmes’s enforcement petition, determining that there were two relevant time periods: Period One between Janu- ary 13, 2013 through December 13, 2013, and Period Two between December 14, 2013 through July 9, 2014. SAppx13, 15. The administrative judge explained the Army’s recoupment action for Period One did not violate the interim relief order because during that period Ms. Holmes had received both interim relief payments from the Army and OWCP benefits. Id. at 15–17. The Army stipulated that Ms. Holmes was entitled to interim relief payments during Period Two. Id. at 17. The Board then granted the Army’s petition for review, correcting the time periods established by the administrative judge to January 2, 2013 through December 14, 2013 for Period One and December 15, 2013 through July 9, 2014 for Period Two. Id. at 165. The Board directed the Army to file evi- dence of compliance with the decision, including evidence Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 03/12/2026

showing that it stopped any efforts to recoup interim relief payments made to Ms. Holmes during Period Two. Id. at 167–68. On June 13, 2022, the Army filed its statement of com- pliance, stating in part that it had provided the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with a copy of the relevant order and that it instructed DFAS to not seek re- coupment of any interim relief payments made to Ms. Holmes during Period Two. SAppx 3. Ms. Holmes’s response argued that the Army’s statement did not include a calculation of her debt. Id. The Clerk of the Board di- rected the Army to submit: (1) a narrative statement ex- plaining the agency’s calculation of Ms. Holmes’s debt resulting from the incorrectly transmitted interim relief payments; and (2) evidence of the amounts recouped from her. Id. at 4. The Army responded by filing a supplemental statement of compliance that included a six-page narrative from Jill Snipes, the Debts & Retirements Division Chief within Civil Pay Operations at DFAS, explaining the cal- culation of Ms. Holmes’s debt and recoupment amounts. See id. at 50–89. Ms. Holmes, in response, asserted the Army filed “overly technical documents” that were incom- prehensible. Id. at 44. On January 15, 2025, the Board issued a Final Order finding that the Army had sufficiently established Ms. Holmes’s debt for Period One, and that it had not sought recoupment for interim relief payments made for Period Two. SAppx 1–7. Ms. Holmes timely filed a petition for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). DISCUSSION Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), we may set aside an action of the Board only if it was “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 03/12/2026

HOLMES v. ARMY 5

substantial evidence.” McIntosh v. Dep’t of Def., 53 F.4th 630, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Ms. Holmes, as the petitioner, bears the burden of establishing that the Board committed reversible error. See Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Ms. Holmes argues that the Army did not provide suf- ficient evidence and explanation for how it calculated her debt. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 5. Among many purported deficiencies, Ms. Holmes alleges that the Army did not pro- vide the source documents for the many spreadsheets and “[t]herefore there is no way to verify the data” in the Army’s spreadsheets. Id. at 5–6. Ms. Holmes’s argument is not persuasive. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determina- tion that the Army complied with the Board’s order to ex- plain its calculations of Ms. Holmes’s debt accrued during Period One. The Army “provided a narrative and spread- sheets with detailed information for the relevant time pe- riod, explaining how the appellant’s debt was calculated.” SAppx 4. In the supplemental statement of compliance, Ms. Snipes explained in detail how the Army calculated Ms. Holmes’s gross debt. See id. at 56–62. All the calcula- tions she described are based on specific line items in a 25-page workbook documenting payments, returned checks, returned electronic funds transfers, and withhold- ings made for specific pay periods. See id. at 63–87. The Board reasonably concluded, based on Ms. Snipes’s expla- nation, that the Army complied with the Board’s order. Id. at 4–7. And, as the Board found below, Ms. Holmes pro- vides no specific challenges to the agency’s calculations; nor has she argued that she returned unaccounted payments to the agency. See id. at 6. She also has neither argued nor shown that she never received the payments described in the Army’s calculations. To the extent Ms. Holmes suggests that the Army failed to comply with the Board’s order not to seek Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 03/12/2026

recoupment of interim relief payments during Period Two, she identifies no evidence that the Army took action to re- coup those payments. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 8–9 (ques- tioning why there were debts “generated” during Period Two, not showing that the Army actively attempted to col- lect those debts). Ms. Holmes, moreover, does not dispute the declarations provided by the Army that “DFAS has stopped any effort to recoup the interim relief payments made to the Appellant during the period from December 15, 2013, through July 9, 2014.” SAppx 161; see also SAppx 61 (another Army declarant explaining that, “[i]n regards to December 15, 20[1]3 to July 9, 2014 when the Employee properly received only interim relief benefits, which the Army could not recoup, no amount has been recouped from the Employee attributable to that period of time”); Pet’r’s Informal Reply 1–3. Substantial evidence therefore sup- ports the Board’s determination that the Army complied with the Board’s order. Ms. Holmes also contends that her constitutional right to due process was violated. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 5, 7, 10, 12. We are not persuaded. “The fundamental require- ment of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Edwards v. Shinseki, 582 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332–33 (1976)). Due process requires “a fair hearing on the merits” of a claim. Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Ms. Holmes does not offer any evidence that she was not meaningfully afforded the opportunity to be heard. On the contrary, the extensive procedural record includes orders from several administrative judges and multiple hearings before the Board. Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 7 Filed: 03/12/2026

HOLMES v. ARMY 7

CONCLUSION We have considered Ms. Holmes’s remaining argu- ments but find them unpersuasive. 2 For the foregoing rea- sons, the Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board is affirmed. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.

2 This includes arguments submitted in Appellant’s Mem. in Lieu of Oral Arg. Dkt. No. 24.