Opinion

Shanae Miller v. Department of the Air Force

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Dec 18, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 33.4%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SHANAE M. MILLER, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DA-0752-21-0010-I-1

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THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1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

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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