UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
JEFFREY MARTIN COHEN, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, CH-3443-17-0280-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DATE: May 25, 2023 Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Jeffrey Martin Cohen, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, pro se.
Gary P. Chura, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one 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1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 this appeal, we conclude that the petit ioner 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).
BACKGROUND ¶2 On March 23, 2017, the appellant filed a Board appeal challenging his September 18, 2016 reassignment from the position of Counseling Psychologist, GS-0180-11 (Step 6), to the term position of Army Substance Abuse Specialist, GS-0101-11 (Step 6). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 3, 5, 7. The agency reassigned the appellant because it discovered that he was unqualified for the position in which he served, as his master’s degree was not in the required field. IAF, Tab 6 at 4, 8. ¶3 When it appeared that the Board may lack jurisdiction over the appeal, the administrative judge issued an order advising the appellant of his burden of proof on jurisdiction and ordering him to file evidence and argument that his appeal was properly before the Board. IAF, Tab 2 at 2-4. Thereafter, the administrative judge issued an order on timeliness, which ordered the appellant to show that his appeal was timely filed or that good cause existed for the 161-day delay. IAF, Tab 3 at 2. The appellant responded to the jurisdiction and timeliness orders. IAF, Tab 4 at 4-5, 7. In particular, he challenged the merits of the reassignment and raised a claim that he was reassigned in retaliation for prior equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. Id. at 7. He also claimed that good 3
cause existed for his untimely filing. Id. at 4-5. Without holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appellant’s appeal, finding that he failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation over which the Board has jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 1-2. She did not address the timeliness of the appeal given her finding on jurisdictio n. ID at 3-4. The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW ¶4 The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to actions made appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a); Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is well settled that the Board does not have jurisdiction over a reassignment of an employee to a position without a reduction in grade or pay. See Maddox, 759 F.2d at 10. The Board does not have jurisdiction over all actions alleged to be unfair or incorrect. Miller v. Department of Homeland Security, 111 M.S.P.R. 325, 332-33 (2009), aff’d, 361 F. App’x 134 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Additionally, an appellant must prove by preponderant evidence that an appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction. 2 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A). An appellant is entitled to a hearing only after raising nonfrivolous allegations of Board jurisdiction. 3 Hardy v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 13 F.3d 1571, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1994). ¶5 Here, the administrative judge properly found that the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation over which the Board has jurisdiction. ID at 1, 3. Specifically, the appellant did not allege that his reassignment resulted in a
2 A preponderance of the evidence is the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q). 3 A nonfrivolous allegation is an assertion that, if proven, could establish the matter at issue. An allegation generally will be considered nonfrivolous when an individual makes an allegation that (1) is more than conclusory, (2) is plausible on its face, and (3) is material to the legal issues in the appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s). 4
reduction in grade or pay or any other facts that would bring the appeal within the Board’s jurisdiction. PFR File, Tab 4. ¶6 Therefore, we agree with the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction and that, therefore, he is not entitled to a hearing. Also, absent an otherwise appealable action, the Board lacks jurisdiction over his claim of EEO retaliation. See Wren v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2 (1980), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4 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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
JEFFREY MARTIN COHEN, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, CH-3443-17-0280-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DATE: May 25, 2023 Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Jeffrey Martin Cohen, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, pro se.
Gary P. Chura, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one 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 this appeal, we conclude that the petit ioner 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).
BACKGROUND ¶2 On March 23, 2017, the appellant filed a Board appeal challenging his September 18, 2016 reassignment from the position of Counseling Psychologist, GS-0180-11 (Step 6), to the term position of Army Substance Abuse Specialist, GS-0101-11 (Step 6). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 3, 5, 7. The agency reassigned the appellant because it discovered that he was unqualified for the position in which he served, as his master’s degree was not in the required field. IAF, Tab 6 at 4, 8. ¶3 When it appeared that the Board may lack jurisdiction over the appeal, the administrative judge issued an order advising the appellant of his burden of proof on jurisdiction and ordering him to file evidence and argument that his appeal was properly before the Board. IAF, Tab 2 at 2-4. Thereafter, the administrative judge issued an order on timeliness, which ordered the appellant to show that his appeal was timely filed or that good cause existed for the 161-day delay. IAF, Tab 3 at 2. The appellant responded to the jurisdiction and timeliness orders. IAF, Tab 4 at 4-5, 7. In particular, he challenged the merits of the reassignment and raised a claim that he was reassigned in retaliation for prior equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. Id. at 7. He also claimed that good 3
cause existed for his untimely filing. Id. at 4-5. Without holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appellant’s appeal, finding that he failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation over which the Board has jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 1-2. She did not address the timeliness of the appeal given her finding on jurisdictio n. ID at 3-4. The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW ¶4 The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to actions made appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a); Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is well settled that the Board does not have jurisdiction over a reassignment of an employee to a position without a reduction in grade or pay. See Maddox, 759 F.2d at 10. The Board does not have jurisdiction over all actions alleged to be unfair or incorrect. Miller v. Department of Homeland Security, 111 M.S.P.R. 325, 332-33 (2009), aff’d, 361 F. App’x 134 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Additionally, an appellant must prove by preponderant evidence that an appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction. 2 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A). An appellant is entitled to a hearing only after raising nonfrivolous allegations of Board jurisdiction. 3 Hardy v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 13 F.3d 1571, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1994). ¶5 Here, the administrative judge properly found that the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation over which the Board has jurisdiction. ID at 1, 3. Specifically, the appellant did not allege that his reassignment resulted in a
2 A preponderance of the evidence is the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q). 3 A nonfrivolous allegation is an assertion that, if proven, could establish the matter at issue. An allegation generally will be considered nonfrivolous when an individual makes an allegation that (1) is more than conclusory, (2) is plausible on its face, and (3) is material to the legal issues in the appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s). 4
reduction in grade or pay or any other facts that would bring the appeal within the Board’s jurisdiction. PFR File, Tab 4. ¶6 Therefore, we agree with the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction and that, therefore, he is not entitled to a hearing. Also, absent an otherwise appealable action, the Board lacks jurisdiction over his claim of EEO retaliation. See Wren v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2 (1980), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4 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.
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 matt er. 5
(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 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 6
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, 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: 7
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 chal lenge 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 e ither 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
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. 8
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 warra nts that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 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: /s/ for Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.