UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
JOETTA JERNIGAN, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DC-1221-19-0593-W-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DATE: August 1, 2024 Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Shaun Yancey , Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.
Heather A. Pepin and Sheila Burns , Fort Liberty, North Carolina, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member*
*Member Kerner did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) 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as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to 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 petitioner 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. 2 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). On review, the appellant argues that the agency took actions that made her working conditions so intolerable that she was coerced into retirement 3 and that the administrative judge abused her discretion when she granted the agency’s motion to stay discovery and disallowed her from engaging in discovery. The administrative judge properly dismissed the IRA appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that she was subjected to a personnel action under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A). See Jay v. Department of the Navy, 90 M.S.P.R. 635, ¶ 12 (2001) (observing that retirements are generally presumed to be voluntary and do not constitute personnel actions under 5 U.S.C. 2 The appellant alleges on petition for review that the administrative judge erred in denying her request to join this matter with her other IRA appeal, Jernigan v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-19-0250-W-1, which was pending at the time, Petition for Review File, Tab 1; however, the record before the administrative judge in this matter contains no such request. In any event, the issue of joinder is now moot given our disposition here and because the Board has since issued a final decision in the other matter, Jernigan v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-19-0250-W-1, Final Order (Aug. 1, 2024). 3 As explained in the initial decision, the appellant applied for immediate retirement on June 22, 2017, after the agency offered voluntary early retirement and a voluntary separation incentive pay to its workforce. The appellant did not separate from the agency until September 30, 2017. 3
§ 2302(a)(2)(A)), aff’d, 51 F. App’x 4 (Fed. Cir. 2002). While the agency moved to stay discovery in this appeal, the administrative judge did not rule on the motion, and at no point did the appellant file a motion to compel the agency to respond to her discovery requests. Because the administrative judge did not rule on the agency’s motion to stay discovery and the appellant did not file a motion to compel, we discern no basis for finding that the administrative judge abused her discretion. See White v. U.S. Postal Service, 64 M.S.P.R. 261, 267-68 (1994) (declining to find an administrative judge’s failure to rule on an agency’s motion for an extension was harmful because the appellant failed to show any adverse effect on her substantive rights). Moreover, as stated above, the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction; thus, she was not entitled to engage in discovery in her IRA appeal. See Sobczak v. Environmental Protection Agency, 64 M.S.P.R. 118, 122 (1994) (stating that an appellant is entitled to discovery in an IRA appeal only when he sets forth nonfrivolous jurisdictional allegations).
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
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 matter. 4
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
JOETTA JERNIGAN, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DC-1221-19-0593-W-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DATE: August 1, 2024 Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Shaun Yancey , Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.
Heather A. Pepin and Sheila Burns , Fort Liberty, North Carolina, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member*
*Member Kerner did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) 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; 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 initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to 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 petitioner 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. 2 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). On review, the appellant argues that the agency took actions that made her working conditions so intolerable that she was coerced into retirement 3 and that the administrative judge abused her discretion when she granted the agency’s motion to stay discovery and disallowed her from engaging in discovery. The administrative judge properly dismissed the IRA appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that she was subjected to a personnel action under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A). See Jay v. Department of the Navy, 90 M.S.P.R. 635, ¶ 12 (2001) (observing that retirements are generally presumed to be voluntary and do not constitute personnel actions under 5 U.S.C. 2 The appellant alleges on petition for review that the administrative judge erred in denying her request to join this matter with her other IRA appeal, Jernigan v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-19-0250-W-1, which was pending at the time, Petition for Review File, Tab 1; however, the record before the administrative judge in this matter contains no such request. In any event, the issue of joinder is now moot given our disposition here and because the Board has since issued a final decision in the other matter, Jernigan v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-19-0250-W-1, Final Order (Aug. 1, 2024). 3 As explained in the initial decision, the appellant applied for immediate retirement on June 22, 2017, after the agency offered voluntary early retirement and a voluntary separation incentive pay to its workforce. The appellant did not separate from the agency until September 30, 2017. 3
§ 2302(a)(2)(A)), aff’d, 51 F. App’x 4 (Fed. Cir. 2002). While the agency moved to stay discovery in this appeal, the administrative judge did not rule on the motion, and at no point did the appellant file a motion to compel the agency to respond to her discovery requests. Because the administrative judge did not rule on the agency’s motion to stay discovery and the appellant did not file a motion to compel, we discern no basis for finding that the administrative judge abused her discretion. See White v. U.S. Postal Service, 64 M.S.P.R. 261, 267-68 (1994) (declining to find an administrative judge’s failure to rule on an agency’s motion for an extension was harmful because the appellant failed to show any adverse effect on her substantive rights). Moreover, as stated above, the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction; thus, she was not entitled to engage in discovery in her IRA appeal. See Sobczak v. Environmental Protection Agency, 64 M.S.P.R. 118, 122 (1994) (stating that an appellant is entitled to discovery in an IRA appeal only when he sets forth nonfrivolous jurisdictional allegations).
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
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 matter. 4
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 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. 5
(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, 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. 6
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. 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).
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. 7
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. 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.