Opinion

Chioma Ezeugwu v. Department of the Navy

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Mar 31, 2026
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 39.9%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CHIOMA MARIELLEN EZEUGWU, DOCKET NUMBERS

Appellant, CH-3443-25-0275-I-1

CH-3443-25-0365-I-1

v. CH-3443-25-1118-I-1

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, DATE: March 31, 2026

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Chioma Mariellen Ezeugwu , Bettendorf, Iowa, pro se.

Trenton Jack Bowen , Keyport, Washington, for the agency.

Kristin Roberts , Washington Navy Yard, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman

James J. Woodruff II, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed petitions for review of the initial decisions, which

dismissed her appeals of various agency actions for lack of jurisdiction.

On petition for review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in

dismissing her appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and she asserts that she has

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

irrefutable and overwhelming evidence demonstrating the agency’s alleged

malicious and unlawful campaign of retaliation and discrimination, culminating

in a de facto termination and preceded by a clear constructive suspension.

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

these appeals, we JOIN these appeals 2 and conclude that the petitioner has not

established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petitions for review.

Joinder of two or more appeals filed by the same appellant may be appropriate when

joinder would expedite processing of the appeals and would not adversely affect the

interests of the parties. Boechler v. Department of the Interior, 109 M.S.P.R. 542, ¶ 14

(2008), aff’d, 328 F. App’x 660 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36(a)(2), (b). We

find that these appeals meet the regulatory criteria, and therefore, we join them.

Therefore, we DENY the petitions for review 3 and AFFIRM the initial decisions,

which are now the Board’s final decision in each appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4

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).

With her petitions for review, the appellant submits documents and emails regarding

her equal employment opportunity and Office of Inspector General complaints, among

other things. Ezeugwu v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. CH-3443-25-

0275-I-1, Petition for Review (0275 PFR) File, Tab 1 at 7-29, Tab 2 at 12-24;

Ezeugwu v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. CH-3443-25-0365-I-1, Petition

for Review (0365 PFR) File, Tab 1 at 7-29, Tab 2 at 12-24; Ezeugwu v. Department of

the Navy, MSPB Docket No. CH-3443-25-1118-I-1, Petition for Review (1118 PFR)

File, Tab 1 at 7-29, Tab 2 at 12-24. We need not address this evidence because most, if

not all, of these documents are not new and, in any event, are not material to the

outcome of the three appeals. Ezeugwu v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No.

CH-3443-25-0275-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 15; Ezeugwu v. Department of the Navy,

MSPB Docket No. CH-3443-25-0365-I-1, Initial Appeal File , Tab 11; Ezeugwu v.

Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. CH-3443-25-1118-I-1, Initial Appeal File ,

Tab 9; see Meier v. Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980) (stating

that, under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence submitted for the

first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before

the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence); Russo v. Veterans

Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (concluding that the Board will not grant a

petition for review based on new evidence absent a showing that it is of sufficient

weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision).

Additionally, the appellant filed numerous motions to submit additional pleadings.

0275 PFR File, Tabs 2-3, 6, 8, 14, 17, 19, 23, 26, 28, 32; 1118 PFR File, Tabs 2-3, 6, 8,

14, 17, 19, 23, 26, 28, 32; 0365 PFR File, Tabs 2-3, 6, 8, 15, 17, 21, 24, 26, 30. When

the record has closed on review, the Board will not accept any additional evidence or

argument unless the party seeking to submit the new evidence or argument shows it is

new and material. Stoglin v. Department of the Air Force, 123 M.S.P.R. 163, ¶ 5 n.3

(2015), aff'd per curiam, 640 F. App'x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(k).

To be material, the appellants submissions must be of sufficient weight to warrant a

different outcome. Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980). The

appellant has not shown that some of the evidence she seeks to submit is new or that the

remaining evidence would address the jurisdictional issues. Therefore, she has not

shown that the evidence is material to our determination, and we deny her motions for

leave to submit additional pleadings. We also deny her various motions to strike, to

compel discovery, for sanctions, for a prehearing conference, for a temporary stay of

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:

U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20439

the proposed removal, for summary judgment, to strike, and to compel discovery. Some

of the appellant’s claims are irrelevant or outside the scope of this proceeding. Her

claims regarding whistleblower reprisal and her performance-based removal are before

the Board in other appeals.

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.

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. 5 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 following