Opinion

Hassan Hwig v. Department of the Navy

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Dec 10, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 33.3%

finding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review an employee’s claim that his security clearance was suspended in retaliation for whistleblowing

How later courts described this case

finding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review an employee’s claim that his security clearance was suspended in retaliation for whistleblowing

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

HASSAN HWIG, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DC-0752-19-0440-I-1

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, DATE: December 10, 2024

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

M. Jefferson Euchler , Virginia Beach, Virginia, for the appellant.

Lauren Leathers , Falls Church, Virginia, for the agency.

Tamara Nicole Borne , Portsmouth, Virginia, 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

affirmed his indefinite suspension based upon his failure to meet a condition of

employment following the revocation of his eligibility to access classified

information and/or assignment to duties that have been designated national

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).

security sensitive. 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. 2 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

On petition for review, the appellant asserts that the agency violated his

due process rights by failing to disclose its reasons for revoking his eligibility to

access classified information and to be assigned duties that are national security

sensitive. Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 6-8. The appellant also argues that

the administrative judge erred in denying his motion to compel discovery on this

issue. Id. at 7-8. He asserts that this information would have shown that the

agency revoked his eligibility in retaliation for his filing of a prior Board appeal.

Id. at 7.

The appellant’s assertions do not provide a basis for review. The agency

provided the appellant with minimal due process by informing him of the basis

The agency filed a motion to dismiss this matter as moot. Petition for Review File,

Tab 6. The agency correctly asserts that the Board issued a Final Order in Hwig v.

Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-18-0368-I-1 (Aug. 25, 2023),

sustaining the appellant’s removal, which was effective before the effective date of the

indefinite suspension that is at issue in this case. Id. The agency also indicates,

however, that if the Board decides not to dismiss the matter as moot, it should uphold

the indefinite suspension. Id. Because we hereby deny the appellant’s petition for

review and affirm the initial decision, the agency’s motion to dismiss is denied.

for his indefinite suspension, i.e., that his position required eligibility to access

classified information and/or assignment to duties that have been designated

national security sensitive. See Palafox v. Department of the Navy, 124 M.S.P.R.

54, ¶ 10 (2016); Buelna v. Department of Homeland Security, 121 M.S.P.R. 262,

¶ 25 (2014); Initial Appeal File, Tab 8 at 33-36. Moreover, the administrative

judge properly found that the Board lacks the authority to review the appellant’s

retaliation claim because deciding such an allegation would involve an inquiry

into the validity of the agency’s reasons for deciding to revoke his eligibility to

access classified information or occupy a sensitive position. See Doe v.

Department of Justice, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 40 (2012) (finding that the Board

lacked the authority to review a discrimination claim in an appeal based on the

suspension or revocation of access to classified information); see also Hesse v.

Department of State, 217 F.3d 1372, 1375-80 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding that the

Board lacked jurisdiction to review an employee’s claim that his security

clearance was suspended in retaliation for whistleblowing). Based on the

foregoing, the administrative judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the

appellant’s motion to compel the agency to respond to discovery requests on this

issue. See Vaughn v. Department of the Treasury, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 15 (2013)

(stating that an administrative judge has broad discretion to rule on discovery

matters and that, absent an abuse of discretion, the Board will not find reversible

error in such rulings).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3

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

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.

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:

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

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

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

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,

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