Opinion

Josy L. Penn v. Department of Defense

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Nov 20, 2025
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 37.1%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

JOSY L. PENN, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DA-3443-18-0347-I-1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DATE: November 20, 2025

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Linda Alsbrook , Dallas, Texas, for the appellant.

Kimberly Blanton-Day , Dallas, Texas, for the agency.

BEFORE

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman

James J. Woodruff II, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2 For the reasons set forth below, 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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).

We deny the appellant's November 13, 2024 motion for leave to file an additional

pleading. The appellant has not established a basis for filing a pleading other than one

generally permissible under the Board's regulations. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a) (2024).

Our decision would be the same considering the revised version of 5 C.F.R.

appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good

cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the date of the

issuance of the initial decision or, if the petitioner shows the initial decision was

received more than 5 days after the date of issuance, within 30 days after the date

the petitioner received the initial decision. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The

Board will waive the time limit upon a showing of good cause for the delay in

filing the petition for review. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). In this case, the

administrative judge issued his initial decision on June 28, 2018, and notified the

appellant that the decision would become final on August 2, 2018, unless a

petition for review was filed with the Board. Id. The appellant did not file her

petition for review until October 3, 2024, more than 6 years after the deadline.

To establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party must show that she

exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances

of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980).

To determine whether an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider

the length of the delay, the reasonableness of her excuse and her showing of due

diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented

evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her

ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune

which similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely file her

petition. Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995),

aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table).

Here, the filing delay of more than 6 years is significant. See Francisco v.

Office of Personnel Management, 95 M.S.P.R. 478, ¶ 6 (2004). The appellant

attributes the delay to her medical conditions and the unavailability of her

§ 1201.114(a) that became effective October 7, 2024. We have considered the

appellant's November 21, 2024 reply to the agency's response to the petition for review,

which is an acceptable pleading under the Board's regulations.

representative, who was out of town. To establish that an untimely filing was the

result of an illness, the party must: (1) identify the time period during which she

suffered from the illness; (2) submit medical evidence showing that she suffered

from the alleged illness during that time period; and (3) explain how the illness

prevented her from timely filing her appeal or a request for an extension of time.

Lacy v. Department of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434, 437 (1998). The appellant has

submitted a doctor’s note indicating that she suffers from medical conditions that

prevent her from representing herself in court. However, the note does not

specify the dates during which the appellant suffered from those medical

conditions, nor does it indicate how those conditions prevented her from filing

her petition before the deadline. We have also considered the statement by the

appellant’s representative, who avers that she was unavailable to assist with a

timely filing and that the appellant “responded as quickly as possible” upon her

return. However, the statement does not specify the period during which the

representative was unavailable, and in any case, the Board has held that an

appellant’s inability to retain an attorney does not establish good cause for an

untimely filing. Huskins v. U.S. Postal Service, 100 M.S.P.R. 664, ¶ 6 (2006).

The appellant’s general personal difficulties also do not constitute good cause for

the filing delay. See Crozier v. Department of Transportation, 93 M.S.P.R. 438,

¶ 9 (2003). In sum, we find that the appellant has not established good cause for

the untimely filing of her petition.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is

the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness

of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the

Board regarding the lack of Board jurisdiction.

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

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