Nhi A. Ha v. Department of Veterans Affairs

CourtMerit Systems Protection Board
DecidedDecember 8, 2025
DocketSF-0714-18-0033-B-1
StatusUnpublished

This text of Nhi A. Ha v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nhi A. Ha v. Department of Veterans Affairs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Merit Systems Protection Board primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nhi A. Ha v. Department of Veterans Affairs, (Miss. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

NHI HA, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, SF-0714-18-0033-B-1

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: December 8, 2025 AFFAIRS, Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Debra D’Agostino , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

Richard Ryan Azar , Los Angeles, California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman James J. Woodruff II, Member

FINAL ORDER

The agency has filed a petition for review of the remand initial decision, which reversed the appellant’s removal. The appellant has filed a motion asserting that the agency failed to comply with the interim relief order in the remand initial decision and requesting that the Board dismiss the agency’s petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3. For the reasons set

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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

forth below, we GRANT the appellant’s motion to dismiss the agency’s petition, DISMISS the agency’s petition for review, and ORDER the agency to cancel the appellant’s removal. The Board's regulations provide that, when an appellant was the prevailing party in the initial decision, and the initial decision granted the appellant interim relief under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(2)(A), an agency petition for review “must be accompanied” by a certification that the agency has complied with the interim relief order. Starkey v. Department of Housing and Urban Development , 2024 MSPB 6, ¶ 12; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(a). The agency’s evidence must show, at a minimum, that it has appointed the appellant to a position carrying the proper title, grade, and rate of pay, and that the appointment was effective as of the date of the initial decision. Lambert v. Department of the Navy, 85 M.S.P.R. 130, ¶ 3 (2000). If the agency files a petition for review and the appellant believes the agency has not provided required interim relief, the appellant may request dismissal of the agency’s petition. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(c). The Board may dismiss a petition for review if it finds the agency to be in noncompliance with its interim relief obligations. Id. In the remand initial decision, dated August 13, 2024, the administrative judge ordered the agency to provide interim relief and warned of the consequences for failing to do so. Remand Appeal File, Tab 9, Remand Initial Decision. In response to the appellant’s timely motion to dismiss the agency’s petition for review, the Clerk of the Board issued an order to the agency to file evidence and argument addressing the appellant’s allegation of noncompliance with the interim relief order. PFR File, Tab 7. The Order advised the agency that failure to provide evidence of compliance with the interim relief order may result in dismissal of the agency’s petition for review. Id. In response, the agency stated that it has no obligation to provide the interim relief ordered by the administrative judge because interim relief is precluded for removals taken under 38 U.S.C. § 714. PFR File, Tab 8. The agency relies on the Board’s decision in 3

Schmitt v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 40, for this proposition. Id. The appellant filed a reply asserting that “[t]he [a]gency should not be permitted to concede [c]hapter 75 is applicable; argue that it prevailed under [c]hapter 75; and also argue that 38 U.S.C. § 714—not [c]hapter 75—governs the relief available to [the appellant].” PFR File, Tab 9. We agree with the appellant that the agency did not include with its petition a certification that it had provided the appellant interim relief effective as of the date of the initial decision, as required under the Board’s regulations. PFR File, Tab 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(a). We find unpersuasive the agency’s argument that it is not obligated to comply with the interim relief order because interim relief is precluded for removals taken under 38 U.S.C. § 714. Specifically, the administrative judge properly determined that the removal action could not be sustained under section 714 because the charged misconduct predated the enactment of section 714. See Brenner v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 990 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating that, “if the [Department of Veterans Affairs] seeks to remove Mr. Brenner under the expedited procedures of 38 U.S.C. § 714, it may only consider events that occurred after the effective date of the Act.”). Thus, the Board’s holding in Schmitt is not controlling in the instant case. Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the agency's petition for review for failure to comply with the administrative judge's interim relief order. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(c).

ORDER We ORDER the agency to cancel the removal and to restore the appellant effective October 18, 2017. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days after the date of this decision. 4

We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due, and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b). No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John H. Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts
726 F.2d 730 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
582 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Joseph Schmitt v. Department of Veterans Affairs
2022 MSPB 40 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2022)
Lois Starkey v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
2024 MSPB 6 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nhi A. Ha v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nhi-a-ha-v-department-of-veterans-affairs-mspb-2025.