Thomas E. Brownscombe v. Veterans Administration

824 F.2d 979, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 321, 1987 WL 37603
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJune 9, 1987
Docket87-3128
StatusUnpublished

This text of 824 F.2d 979 (Thomas E. Brownscombe v. Veterans Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas E. Brownscombe v. Veterans Administration, 824 F.2d 979, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 321, 1987 WL 37603 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Opinion

824 F.2d 979

Unpublished disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Thomas E. BROWNSCOMBE, Petitioner,
v.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

Appeal No. 87-3128.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 9, 1987.

Before RICH, Circuit Judge, and NICHOLS and BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (board), in DC34438610456, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Thomas E. Brownscombe's appeal from the agency's determination that he was not eligible for immediate optional retirement because he had not first appealed to and obtained a final decision from OPM. We affirm.

This court has held that an employee seeking early retirement must first apply to OPM. Edgerton v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 768 F.2d 1314, 1317 (Fed.Cir.1985). Petitioner improperly appealed the agency's denial of early retirement to the board which promptly issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner responded, hinting he was aware that the board did not have jurisdiction, but failed to address that issue. The board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See 5 USC 7703(c).

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

Related

George P. Edgerton v. Merit Systems Protection Board
768 F.2d 1314 (Federal Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
824 F.2d 979, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 321, 1987 WL 37603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-e-brownscombe-v-veterans-administration-cafc-1987.