UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
ROCHELLE WILSON, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DC-0752-21-0025-I-2
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: February 19, 2025 MANAGEMENT, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Rochelle Wilson , Washington, D.C., pro se.
Nadia Pluta , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman* Raymond A. Limon, Member
*Vice Chairman Kerner recused himself and did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which sustained her removal. On petition for review, the appellant disputes the
1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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
misconduct that the administrative judge found the agency proved, contends that the administrative judge erred in her analysis of whistleblower reprisal and reprisal for engaging in union activity claims, and disagrees with the administrative judge’s finding of a nexus and that the penalty of removal was reasonable. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 7 at 15-29. 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 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. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 2 The appellant attaches evidence to her petition for review, consisting of a 1999 collective bargaining agreement and a 2015 email from the appellant to several other agency officials, describing the history of the “Data Management
2 The appellant requested and was granted permission to amend her petition. PFR File, Tabs 1, 4-5. After the designated deadline for that amendment, she moved to amend her petition two additional times. PFR File, Tabs 8, 10. Those requests are denied. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5) (2024) (limiting the pleadings parties may submit in connection to a petition for review, and providing that additional pleadings will not be accepted absent leave from the Clerk of the Board, based on a motion describing the nature and need for the pleading). The record in this appeal is sufficiently developed and the appellant has not adequately explained the need for additional pleadings or amendments. 3
Group.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 20-155. To the extent that this evidence is not included in the extensive record below, the appellant has not shown that it was previously unavailable. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980) (stating that the Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence). In any event, its relevance is not apparent to us. The appellant also argued that the agency engaged in harmful procedural errors regarding her placement on administrative leave in 2015, and its choice of proposing and deciding officials. PFR File, Tab 7 at 4-5. However, this was not among the affirmative defenses raised below. See Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (holding that the Board will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence). Additionally, the appellant has not explained how these alleged errors were harmful. 3 See Chin v. Department of Defense, 2022 MSPB 34, ¶ 18 (recognizing that it is an appellant’s burden to prove that a procedural error occurred and that the error substantially prejudiced his rights such that the outcome was probably affected). In sum, we have considered the appellant’s petition, and all arguments contained within, but we find the petition unavailing.
3 The appellant also argues on review that the administrative judge abused her discretion in disallowing certain witnesses. PFR File, Tab 7 at 7-10. However, she did not object to these rulings below, despite having the opportunity to do so, so she is precluded from raising the objection on review. See Tarpley v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 579, 581 (1988) (finding that an appellant’s failure to timely object to the administrative judge’s rulings on witnesses precluded her from doing so on petition for review). Even if she had preserved the argument, the appellant has not shown that the administrative judge’s rulings on these witnesses constituted an abuse of discretion. See Vaughn v. Department of the Treasury, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 13 (2013) (declining to find that an administrative judge abused his discretion in denying witnesses in the absence of a showing that their testimony would have been relevant, material, and nonrepetitious). 4
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.
(1) Judicial review in general .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
ROCHELLE WILSON, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DC-0752-21-0025-I-2
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: February 19, 2025 MANAGEMENT, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Rochelle Wilson , Washington, D.C., pro se.
Nadia Pluta , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman* Raymond A. Limon, Member
*Vice Chairman Kerner recused himself and did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which sustained her removal. On petition for review, the appellant disputes the
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
misconduct that the administrative judge found the agency proved, contends that the administrative judge erred in her analysis of whistleblower reprisal and reprisal for engaging in union activity claims, and disagrees with the administrative judge’s finding of a nexus and that the penalty of removal was reasonable. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 7 at 15-29. 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 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. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 2 The appellant attaches evidence to her petition for review, consisting of a 1999 collective bargaining agreement and a 2015 email from the appellant to several other agency officials, describing the history of the “Data Management
2 The appellant requested and was granted permission to amend her petition. PFR File, Tabs 1, 4-5. After the designated deadline for that amendment, she moved to amend her petition two additional times. PFR File, Tabs 8, 10. Those requests are denied. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5) (2024) (limiting the pleadings parties may submit in connection to a petition for review, and providing that additional pleadings will not be accepted absent leave from the Clerk of the Board, based on a motion describing the nature and need for the pleading). The record in this appeal is sufficiently developed and the appellant has not adequately explained the need for additional pleadings or amendments. 3
Group.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 20-155. To the extent that this evidence is not included in the extensive record below, the appellant has not shown that it was previously unavailable. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980) (stating that the Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence). In any event, its relevance is not apparent to us. The appellant also argued that the agency engaged in harmful procedural errors regarding her placement on administrative leave in 2015, and its choice of proposing and deciding officials. PFR File, Tab 7 at 4-5. However, this was not among the affirmative defenses raised below. See Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (holding that the Board will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence). Additionally, the appellant has not explained how these alleged errors were harmful. 3 See Chin v. Department of Defense, 2022 MSPB 34, ¶ 18 (recognizing that it is an appellant’s burden to prove that a procedural error occurred and that the error substantially prejudiced his rights such that the outcome was probably affected). In sum, we have considered the appellant’s petition, and all arguments contained within, but we find the petition unavailing.
3 The appellant also argues on review that the administrative judge abused her discretion in disallowing certain witnesses. PFR File, Tab 7 at 7-10. However, she did not object to these rulings below, despite having the opportunity to do so, so she is precluded from raising the objection on review. See Tarpley v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 579, 581 (1988) (finding that an appellant’s failure to timely object to the administrative judge’s rulings on witnesses precluded her from doing so on petition for review). Even if she had preserved the argument, the appellant has not shown that the administrative judge’s rulings on these witnesses constituted an abuse of discretion. See Vaughn v. Department of the Treasury, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 13 (2013) (declining to find that an administrative judge abused his discretion in denying witnesses in the absence of a showing that their testimony would have been relevant, material, and nonrepetitious). 4
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.
(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:
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. 5
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 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 6
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: 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 7
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). 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.
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
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.