# De Edric Graham v. U.S. Postal Service

> Merit Systems Protection Board · April 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11306507

## Case

- **Court:** Merit Systems Protection Board
- **Decided:** April 7, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11306507

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DE EDRIC EMMANUEL GRAHAM, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, CB-7121-25-0009-V-1

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DATE: April 7, 2026
Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

De Edric Emmanuel Graham , Inglewood, California, pro se.

Roderick Eves , Esquire, Erin Z. Dixon , Esquire, and Bobbi Mihal ¸ Esquire,
St. Louis, Missouri, for the agency.

BEFORE

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman
James J. Woodruff II, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant filed a request for the Board to enforce a March 1, 2019
arbitration decision mitigating his February 2018 removal to a 14-day suspension
and to review a June 21, 2019 arbitration decision finding that the agency’s
May 2018 removal of the appellant was for “just cause.” For the reasons set forth
below, we DISMISS the appellant’s request for lack of jurisdiction.

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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

BACKGROUND
The appellant, a preference-eligible, was employed as a Building
Equipment Mechanic with the agency. Request for Review (RFR) File, Tab 6
at 12-13. On February 8, 2018, the agency issued a letter removing the appellant,
effective February 10, 2018, for unacceptable conduct. Id. at 14-16. The
agency’s decision letter advised the appellant of his appeal rights, including his
right to file both a grievance and a Board appeal. Id. at 15-16. The appellant
filed a grievance and ultimately the union invoked arbitration over the appellant’s
February 2018 removal. 2 RFR File, Tab 5 at 8-9. On March 1, 2019, the
arbitrator issued a decision reducing the appellant’s February 2018 removal to a
14-day suspension and ordered the appellant to be made whole, minus the
suspension, and returned to duty. Id. at 7.
While the appellant’s first arbitration was pending a hearing, the agency
issued a second decision letter removing him from his position, effective May 12,
2018, based on substantively different misconduct. 3 Compare RFR File, Tab 6
at 14-16, with Tab 6 at 18-25. The agency’s second decision letter again advised
the appellant of his appeal rights, including his right to file both a grievance and a
Board appeal. RFR File, Tab 6 at 23-25. The appellant filed a grievance, and the
union again invoked arbitration challenging his second removal. RFR File, Tab 5
at 30-33. Then, on June 21, 2019, the same arbitrator denied the appellant’s
grievance and found that the agency issued the May 2018 removal for just cause.
Id. at 22.
Over 5 years later, on January 2, 2025, the appellant filed a request for
review with the Board alleging, among other things, that the agency did not
comply with the March 1, 2019 award ordering the agency to make him whole,

2
The appellant originally filed a grievance of the agency’s notice of proposed removal,
issued on December 21, 2017. RFR File, Tab 5 at 8-9.
3
The appellant remained in a non-pay, non-duty status after the effective date of the
removal action pending the disposition of his appeal. RFR File, Tab 6 at 16.
3

absent a 14-day suspension. RFR File, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 4 at 2, Tab 7 at 4. The
appellant also appears to be challenging the merits of the second removal and
asserts that the agency refused to comply with the first arbitration decision in
order to seek a more favorable decision in the second removal proceedings. RFR
File, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 7 at 4, Tab 8 at 3. The agency filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the arbitration decisions. RFR
File, Tab 6 at 4-11. 4

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
As a general rule, an employee defined at 5 U.S.C. § 7511, who is affected
by a personnel action that is both appealable to the Board and covered by a
negotiated grievance procedure, may contest the action before the Board or
through the negotiated procedure, but not both. 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d). An
employee who elects to grieve may seek Board review of the arbitrator’s decision,
if he raises an allegation that the action was based on discrimination. Id.; Stroud
v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 43, ¶ 25.
In contrast to the rights generally applicable to the Federal employees set
forth above, a preference-eligible Postal Service employee affected by an action
appealable to the Board may both grieve and appeal the same action, each subject
to relevant timeliness requirements. Masdea v. U.S. Postal Service, 90 M.S.P.R.
556, ¶ 5 (2002). Because, however, 5 U.S.C. § 7121 does not apply to the Postal

4
After the record closed, the appellant filed additional submissions, including a
pleading entitled Statement of Procedural Irregularities, arguing that the agency
committed procedural errors, and another pleading entitled Rebuttal to Non Jurisdiction
Claim, arguing, among other things, the underlying merits of his case. RFR File,
Tab 12 at 4, Tab 13 at 4-6. The Board does not accept submissions filed after the close
of the record absent a motion seeking leave to file and describing the nature of and need
for the pleadings. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(4), (k). The appellant did not file such a
motion. Furthermore, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(4), a party must show that
evidence submitted after the close of the record is new and material. Here, the
appellant’s arguments are largely duplicative of the appellant’s previous filings
submitted before the close of record and they do not alter the outcome of this case.
RFR File, Tabs 1, 4-5, 7-9. Accordingly, the evidence is neither new nor material, and
we decline to consider it.
4

Service, the Board has no jurisdiction to review an arbitrator’s decision
concerning a preference-eligible Postal Service employee. Id.; see Fedon v.
U.S. Postal Service, 78 M.S.P.R. 657, 660 (1998) (explaining that a
preference-eligible Postal Service employee can file both a grievance and a Board
appeal from the same action, but does not have a right of Board review of an
arbitration decision). Furthermore, the Board lacks the authority to enforce an
arbitration decision when there is no Board order involved. Cloutterbuck v.
Department of Labor, 88 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 5 (2001); see Hunter v. Department of the
Air Force, 83 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 11 (1999). Accordingly, the appellant does not have
a right to request Board review, or enforcement, of either arbitration decision, and
thus, we dismiss his request for review for lack of jurisdiction.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
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

5
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.
5

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
6

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
7

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. 6 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
address:

6
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,
132 Stat. 1510.
8

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.
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11306507. Public record. Not legal advice.