The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
ADOLAT NADJIMOVA, DOCKET NUMBER
Petitioner, CB-1205-25-0053-U-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: February 19, 2026
MANAGEMENT,
Agency,
and
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Janei Au , Montgomery Village, Maryland, for the petitioner.
Allison Kidd-Miller , D. Black , Eyana Esters , and Michele Bloom ,
Washington, D.C., for the Office of Personnel Management.
Marianne Perciaccante and Vidhya B. Amirthalingam , Washington, D.C.,
for the Department of State.
BEFORE
Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman
James J. Woodruff II, Member
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
FINAL ORDER
On July 30, 2025, the petitioner requested that, pursuant to our authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 1204(f), we review whether the Department of State’s issuance
of a July 11, 2025 reduction-in-force notice violated the Office of Personnel
Management’s regulations and resulted in the commission of prohibited personnel
practices. Review Request File (RRF), Tab 1 at 8. For the reasons discussed
below, we DISMISS this matter as withdrawn with prejudice to refiling (i.e., the
parties normally may not refile this petition).
While this matter was pending before the Board, the petitioner, through her
attorney, filed a December 2, 2025 motion stating that “she is withdrawing her
appeal.” RRF, Tab 16 at 1. In the context of an appeal of an adverse personnel
action, the Board has stated that an appellant’s relinquishment of her right to
appeal to the Board must be by clear, unequivocal, and decisive action. Cason v.
Department of the Army, 118 M.S.P.R. 58, ¶ 5 (2012); Leno v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 90 M.S.P.R. 614, ¶ 3 (2002). The Board has also stated that,
absent unusual circumstances, the withdrawal of an appeal is an act of finality
that has the effect of removing the matter from the Board’s jurisdiction. Pradier
v. U.S. Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 495, ¶ 7 (2010); Leno, 90 M.S.P.R. 614, ¶ 3.
We discern no reason not to apply those principles in the context of a regulation
review request. See 5 C.F.R. § 1203.1(b)(1) (stating that, where appropriate and
unless the Board’s regulations provide otherwise, the Board may apply the
provisions of 5 C.F.R. part 1201, subpart B, to regulation review proceedings).
3
Here, through her attorney, the petitioner has clearly, unequivocally, and
decisively withdrawn her regulation review request. Thus, finding that
withdrawal is appropriate under these circumstances, we dismiss this matter as
withdrawn with prejudice to refiling. This is the final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board in this proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, section 1203.12(b) (5 C.F.R. § 1203.12(b)).
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.