UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
SHANAE M. MILLER, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0752-21-0010-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, DATE: December 18, 2024 Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Alan V. Edmunds , Esquire, Joseph D. Jordan , Esquire, and Lance Renfro , Esquire, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, for the appellant.
Jacquelyn M. Christilles and Olga Sinquefield , Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which sustained her removal based on her loss of eligibility to occupy a noncritical sensitive position. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in 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1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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
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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to vacate the administrative judge’s analysis of the appellant’s allegations regarding the agency’s failure to comply with its regulations and procedures in conducting a security clearance investigation and find instead that such allegations are not within the Board’s jurisdiction to review, we AFFIRM the initial decision. The appellant asserted below that that the agency committed harmful error by failing to discontinue its Top Secret security clearance investigation of her for a position at Lackland Air Force Base after, having initially accepted the position, she declined the position and accepted a position at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 4-5. According to the appellant, under the agency’s regulations, the investigation for a higher-level clearance required by the position at Lackland should have stopped when it was no longer necessary, and, if it had stopped, her clearance would not have been revoked. Id. In analyzing the appellant’s claim, the administrative judge considered the various versions of the agency’s regulations identified by the parties and ultimately concluded that the appellant failed to show harmful error. IAF, Tab 27, Initial Decision at 8-9. 3
On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in his interpretation of the agency’s regulations and policies. 2 Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 7-8. The Board may review whether an agency’s failure to comply with its own regulations and procedures in revoking a security clearance is harmful error. Doe v. Department of Justice, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 32 (2012). The scope of the Board’s authority is limited to the agency’s procedures in revoking a clearance, such as an explanation for the reasons for the unfavorable clearance determination, an opportunity to respond, and a final written decision. See Schnedar v. Department of the Air Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 516, ¶ 10 (2014). The Board lacks the authority to review the propriety of the agency’s security clearance investigation process. Jones v. Department of the Navy, 48 M.S.P.R. 680, 687 n.19, aff’d as modified on recons., 51 M.S.P.R. 607 (1991), aff’d, 978 F.2d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, the appellant’s claims do not concern improprieties in the process the agency used in revoking her clearance. Rather, they center on irregularities in the security clearance investigation process. Thus, the appellant’s claims are outside the Board’s jurisdiction. The administrative judge thus should not have addressed those matters, and we vacate that portion of the initial decision addressing the agency’s security clearance investigation process.
2 With her petition for review, the appellant submits the following documents: (1) the Department Of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility final decision, (2) the notice of proposed removal, (3) the removal decision, (4) the agency’s narrative response, (5) her prehearing submission, and (6) the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 1 at 12-64. These documents are already in the record and were considered by the administrative judge and have been considered on review. We find that these documents provide no basis to disturb the initial decision. 4
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3 The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
SHANAE M. MILLER, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0752-21-0010-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, DATE: December 18, 2024 Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Alan V. Edmunds , Esquire, Joseph D. Jordan , Esquire, and Lance Renfro , Esquire, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, for the appellant.
Jacquelyn M. Christilles and Olga Sinquefield , Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which sustained her removal based on her loss of eligibility to occupy a noncritical sensitive position. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in 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
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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to vacate the administrative judge’s analysis of the appellant’s allegations regarding the agency’s failure to comply with its regulations and procedures in conducting a security clearance investigation and find instead that such allegations are not within the Board’s jurisdiction to review, we AFFIRM the initial decision. The appellant asserted below that that the agency committed harmful error by failing to discontinue its Top Secret security clearance investigation of her for a position at Lackland Air Force Base after, having initially accepted the position, she declined the position and accepted a position at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 4-5. According to the appellant, under the agency’s regulations, the investigation for a higher-level clearance required by the position at Lackland should have stopped when it was no longer necessary, and, if it had stopped, her clearance would not have been revoked. Id. In analyzing the appellant’s claim, the administrative judge considered the various versions of the agency’s regulations identified by the parties and ultimately concluded that the appellant failed to show harmful error. IAF, Tab 27, Initial Decision at 8-9. 3
On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in his interpretation of the agency’s regulations and policies. 2 Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 7-8. The Board may review whether an agency’s failure to comply with its own regulations and procedures in revoking a security clearance is harmful error. Doe v. Department of Justice, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 32 (2012). The scope of the Board’s authority is limited to the agency’s procedures in revoking a clearance, such as an explanation for the reasons for the unfavorable clearance determination, an opportunity to respond, and a final written decision. See Schnedar v. Department of the Air Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 516, ¶ 10 (2014). The Board lacks the authority to review the propriety of the agency’s security clearance investigation process. Jones v. Department of the Navy, 48 M.S.P.R. 680, 687 n.19, aff’d as modified on recons., 51 M.S.P.R. 607 (1991), aff’d, 978 F.2d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, the appellant’s claims do not concern improprieties in the process the agency used in revoking her clearance. Rather, they center on irregularities in the security clearance investigation process. Thus, the appellant’s claims are outside the Board’s jurisdiction. The administrative judge thus should not have addressed those matters, and we vacate that portion of the initial decision addressing the agency’s security clearance investigation process.
2 With her petition for review, the appellant submits the following documents: (1) the Department Of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility final decision, (2) the notice of proposed removal, (3) the removal decision, (4) the agency’s narrative response, (5) her prehearing submission, and (6) the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 1 at 12-64. These documents are already in the record and were considered by the administrative judge and have been considered on review. We find that these documents provide no basis to disturb the initial decision. 4
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3 The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. 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:
3 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. 4 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. Contact information for
4 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
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.