NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-3416
DONALD IAN-BENET,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Respondent.
Donald Ian-Benet, of Rockville, Maryland, pro se.
Joan Stentiford, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Kathryn A. Bleecker, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
____________________________
DECIDED: March 6, 2007 ____________________________
Before DYK, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Donald Ian-Benet petitions this court for review of the decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his petition for enforcement of a settlement
agreement entered into by Ian-Benet and his former employer the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA). Because the Board’s finding that Ian-Benet failed to prove
that the NGA breached the settlement agreement is supported by substantial evidence,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ian-Benet was employed as a geopositioning cartographer at the NGA over
sixteen years. He was terminated on April 25, 2005 after failing to report to work
regularly between October 2001 and March 2005, failing to report to work at all in the
2005 calendar year, and using over 3,000 hours of leave without pay. Ian-Benet appealed the termination to the Board (Docket No. 0752050513-I-1) on May 25, 2005.
Ian-Benet and the NGA subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with respect
to his Board appeal on September 15, 2005.
Under that settlement agreement, Ian-Benet agreed to withdrawal with prejudice
of his Board appeal upon execution of the agreement. In return, the NGA agreed to
cancel Ian-Benet’s removal, rescind the SF-50 stating that he had been removed, and
issue a new SF-50 stating he had voluntarily resigned from federal service for “medical
reasons.” The NGA also agreed to convert all leave designated as absent without leave
for certain dates to leave without pay and support any claim he might make for Disability
Retirement with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). For any queries from
prospective employers, the NGA also agreed to confirm only Ian-Benet’s dates of
employment, title, and job responsibilities, and state that he had received “successful”
performance ratings. If asked, the NGA agreed to state that Ian-Benet resigned for
medical reasons.
Ian-Benet was represented by counsel when he entered into the settlement
agreement and the Board reviewed the agreement and concluded that it had been
entered into voluntarily. Thus, the Board accepted the parties’ settlement agreement
and dismissed Ian-Benet’s appeal of his termination from government employment.
Ian-Benet v. Dep’t of Def., DC0752050513-I-1 (MSPB Sept. 16, 2005).
On March 13, 2006, Ian-Benet filed a petition for enforcement of the settlement
agreement.1 In this petition, he alleged that the NGA breached the agreement by
1 The Board has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if the underlying appeal is within its jurisdiction and the settlement agreement is entered into the record.
2006-3416 2 improperly dismissing him based on information obtained in a manner that violates the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)2 and the Federal Privacy
Act. After this petition was filed, Ian-Benet filed additional documentation alleging that
the NGA provided negative references to prospective employers in violation of the
settlement agreement. In response, the NGA asserted that it had complied with the
terms of the settlement agreement and submitted declarations from various personnel
associated with its efforts to comply with the terms of the agreement. It also provided
other documentary evidence of compliance.
In ruling on Ian-Benet’s petition, the administrative judge (AJ) found that Ian-
Benet failed to prove that the agency breached the settlement agreement and
concluded that Ian-Benet could not seek further review of his termination through a
petition for enforcement. Thus, the AJ denied the petition for enforcement. Ian-Benet v.
Dep’t. of Def., DC0752050513-I-1 (MSPB May 1, 2006). The Board denied his petition
for review and the AJ’s Initial Decision became final on August 11, 2006. Ian-Benet
timely filed his notice of appeal on September 15, 2006.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
ANALYSIS
We must affirm a Board decision unless it is (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
substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a) (2006). “A settlement agreement is a
2 Ian-Benet asserts that his rights under HIPA or the Health Information Protection Act have been violated, but we read this as an allegation that the actions violated HIPAA.
2006-3416 3 contract, the interpretation of which is a question of law.” Musick v. Dep’t. of Energy,
339 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We review legal conclusions under the de novo
standard on appeal. Perry v. Dep’t of the Army, 992 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A Board finding that a settlement agreement has or has not been breached is a factual
finding, which we review for substantial evidence. See id. at 1370; Thomas v. Dep’t of
Hous. & Urban Dev., 124 F.3d 1439, 1441-42 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
On appeal, Ian-Benet contends that the NGA breached the settlement agreement
by improperly consulting with his psychologist and other individuals before removing
him from federal service in violation of federal privacy laws, his dismissal was improper
and retribution for an earlier EEOC case, and the NGA failed to give favorable
recommendations to prospective employers. As the AJ determined, Ian-Benet had an
opportunity to continue to question the propriety of his removal and opted to settle that
appeal to the Board on September 15, 2005. Ian-Benet’s settlement agreement
dispensed with his claims regarding the NGA removal decision and claims “of any
nature” against the NGA “with respect to any actions occurring prior to the date of [the]
agreement.” Thus, Ian-Benet’s claim that information provided by his psychologist in
April 2005 (prior to his removal) violated HIPAA and other federal privacy laws is
foreclosed by the terms of the settlement agreement. The issue in this petition for
enforcement is whether the NGA took any action or failed to take certain actions that
render it non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.
The NGA provided evidence that demonstrates its compliance with the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-3416
DONALD IAN-BENET,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Respondent.
Donald Ian-Benet, of Rockville, Maryland, pro se.
Joan Stentiford, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Kathryn A. Bleecker, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
____________________________
DECIDED: March 6, 2007 ____________________________
Before DYK, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Donald Ian-Benet petitions this court for review of the decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his petition for enforcement of a settlement
agreement entered into by Ian-Benet and his former employer the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA). Because the Board’s finding that Ian-Benet failed to prove
that the NGA breached the settlement agreement is supported by substantial evidence,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ian-Benet was employed as a geopositioning cartographer at the NGA over
sixteen years. He was terminated on April 25, 2005 after failing to report to work
regularly between October 2001 and March 2005, failing to report to work at all in the
2005 calendar year, and using over 3,000 hours of leave without pay. Ian-Benet appealed the termination to the Board (Docket No. 0752050513-I-1) on May 25, 2005.
Ian-Benet and the NGA subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with respect
to his Board appeal on September 15, 2005.
Under that settlement agreement, Ian-Benet agreed to withdrawal with prejudice
of his Board appeal upon execution of the agreement. In return, the NGA agreed to
cancel Ian-Benet’s removal, rescind the SF-50 stating that he had been removed, and
issue a new SF-50 stating he had voluntarily resigned from federal service for “medical
reasons.” The NGA also agreed to convert all leave designated as absent without leave
for certain dates to leave without pay and support any claim he might make for Disability
Retirement with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). For any queries from
prospective employers, the NGA also agreed to confirm only Ian-Benet’s dates of
employment, title, and job responsibilities, and state that he had received “successful”
performance ratings. If asked, the NGA agreed to state that Ian-Benet resigned for
medical reasons.
Ian-Benet was represented by counsel when he entered into the settlement
agreement and the Board reviewed the agreement and concluded that it had been
entered into voluntarily. Thus, the Board accepted the parties’ settlement agreement
and dismissed Ian-Benet’s appeal of his termination from government employment.
Ian-Benet v. Dep’t of Def., DC0752050513-I-1 (MSPB Sept. 16, 2005).
On March 13, 2006, Ian-Benet filed a petition for enforcement of the settlement
agreement.1 In this petition, he alleged that the NGA breached the agreement by
1 The Board has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if the underlying appeal is within its jurisdiction and the settlement agreement is entered into the record.
2006-3416 2 improperly dismissing him based on information obtained in a manner that violates the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)2 and the Federal Privacy
Act. After this petition was filed, Ian-Benet filed additional documentation alleging that
the NGA provided negative references to prospective employers in violation of the
settlement agreement. In response, the NGA asserted that it had complied with the
terms of the settlement agreement and submitted declarations from various personnel
associated with its efforts to comply with the terms of the agreement. It also provided
other documentary evidence of compliance.
In ruling on Ian-Benet’s petition, the administrative judge (AJ) found that Ian-
Benet failed to prove that the agency breached the settlement agreement and
concluded that Ian-Benet could not seek further review of his termination through a
petition for enforcement. Thus, the AJ denied the petition for enforcement. Ian-Benet v.
Dep’t. of Def., DC0752050513-I-1 (MSPB May 1, 2006). The Board denied his petition
for review and the AJ’s Initial Decision became final on August 11, 2006. Ian-Benet
timely filed his notice of appeal on September 15, 2006.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
ANALYSIS
We must affirm a Board decision unless it is (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
substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a) (2006). “A settlement agreement is a
2 Ian-Benet asserts that his rights under HIPA or the Health Information Protection Act have been violated, but we read this as an allegation that the actions violated HIPAA.
2006-3416 3 contract, the interpretation of which is a question of law.” Musick v. Dep’t. of Energy,
339 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We review legal conclusions under the de novo
standard on appeal. Perry v. Dep’t of the Army, 992 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A Board finding that a settlement agreement has or has not been breached is a factual
finding, which we review for substantial evidence. See id. at 1370; Thomas v. Dep’t of
Hous. & Urban Dev., 124 F.3d 1439, 1441-42 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
On appeal, Ian-Benet contends that the NGA breached the settlement agreement
by improperly consulting with his psychologist and other individuals before removing
him from federal service in violation of federal privacy laws, his dismissal was improper
and retribution for an earlier EEOC case, and the NGA failed to give favorable
recommendations to prospective employers. As the AJ determined, Ian-Benet had an
opportunity to continue to question the propriety of his removal and opted to settle that
appeal to the Board on September 15, 2005. Ian-Benet’s settlement agreement
dispensed with his claims regarding the NGA removal decision and claims “of any
nature” against the NGA “with respect to any actions occurring prior to the date of [the]
agreement.” Thus, Ian-Benet’s claim that information provided by his psychologist in
April 2005 (prior to his removal) violated HIPAA and other federal privacy laws is
foreclosed by the terms of the settlement agreement. The issue in this petition for
enforcement is whether the NGA took any action or failed to take certain actions that
render it non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.
The NGA provided evidence that demonstrates its compliance with the
agreement. Edward Maness, the Human Development Consultant for the Office of
Targeting and Transnational Issues at the NGA, declared that he removed all copies of
2006-3416 4 the SF-50 stating that Ian-Benet’s separation from federal service was due to removal in
compliance with paragraph 3 of the settlement agreement. He also stated that he had
the SF-50 reissued to show a separation from service due to a voluntary resignation for
medical reasons, and provided a copy of the new SF-50 with his declaration. Maness
stated that he removed all documents from Ian-Benet’s Official Personnel File (OPF)
that refer to the removal action and confirmed after an additional inspection that the file
does not contain documents relating to the removal action. The time and attendance
reports provided by the NGA show that the leave previously listed as absence without
leave has been converted to leave without pay.
Sharon Kennedy, the Human Development Consultant at the NGA, declared that
one of her duties would include responding to the OPM with respect to Ian-Benet’s
disability retirement application but that she has not been contacted by OPM regarding
his application. She also inferred that she is responsible for providing the NGA
response to inquiries from prospective employers, and has not received any direct
inquiries or received any messages from prospective employers regarding Ian-Benet.
Ian-Benet provided correspondence with two potential employers, one of which denies
that she ever sought feedback from the NGA on Ian-Benet. He does not point to any
prospective employer that did contact the NGA. He has indicated, however, that his
inability to find a job is due to the NGA’s unfavorable reviews provided to prospective
employers. This statement by Ian-Benet does not constitute evidence of the NGA’s
failure to follow the terms of the settlement agreement that required favorable reviews.
Upon review of the record, Ian-Benet has not provided evidence that the NGA
failed to meet the terms of the settlement agreement with respect to inquiries from
2006-3416 5 prospective employers and has not proven that it failed to meet the terms and
conditions of the agreement.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Final Decision of the Board is affirmed.
No costs.
2006-3416 6