The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
SEAN M. DONAHUE, DOCKET NUMBERS
Appellant, PH-1221-17-0103-W-1
PH-4324-17-0169-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Agency. DATE: July 19, 2022
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Sean M. Donahue, Hazleton, Pennsylvania, pro se.
Richard T. Buchanan, Esquire, and Anthony D. DiBacco, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
Tristan L. Leavitt, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed petitions for review of two initial decisions, which
dismissed one of his appeals as withdrawn and dismissed another for lack of
jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as these only in the following
circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
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 materi al
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 conclude that the petitioner has not
established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition s for review.
Therefore, we DENY the petitions for review. We VACATE the initial decision
dismissing MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-17-0103-W-1 as withdrawn and DISMISS
that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We AFFIRM the initial decision in MSPB
Docket No. PH-4324-17-0169-I-1.
¶2 This decision concerns two of the appellant’s appeals. Donahue v.
Department of Labor, MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-17-0103-W-1 (0103 appeal),
Initial Appeal File (0103 IAF), Tab 23, Initial Decision (0103 ID); Donahue v.
Department of Labor, MSPB Docket No. PH-4324-17-0169-I-1 (0169 appeal),
Initial Appeal File (0169 IAF), Tab 22, Initial Decision (0169 ID). Though
adjudicated separately below, we JOIN them on review because the facts are
related and joinder will expedite processing without adversely affecting the
interests of the parties. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36(b).
¶3 In October 2016, the appellant contacted the agency, alleging that it had
refused to provide him with veteran priority services, including referrals and
placement into a professional job. 0103 IAF, Tab 1 at 9-13. The agency
responded, in part explaining that it could not assist him because he had been
banned from certain facilities due to his conviction for harassment of Government
officials. Id. at 7-8, 14; see 0103 IAF, Tab 19 at 10-12. In turn, the appellant
filed the 0103 appeal, asking that the Board force the agency to stop retaliation
3
against him by denying him services, in particular, services provided at Federally
funded American Jobs Centers. 0103 IAF, Tab 1 at 5.
¶4 The administrative judge issued a jurisdictional order, indicating that the
0103 appeal appeared to be an individual right of action (IRA) appeal concerning
whistleblowing or other protected activity. 0103 IAF, Tab 3 at 1 -2. Accordingly,
he explained the applicable standards and instructed the appellant to meet his
jurisdictional burden. Id. at 2-8. Over the next few days, the appellant submitted
a number of pleadings, some of which suggested that he wished to withdraw his
appeal. 0103 IAF, Tabs 4-16. The agency filed a motion to dismiss the 0103 IRA
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because (1) the appellant is not an employee,
former employee, or applicant for employment, (2) he was not subjected to a
personnel action, and (3) he did not make a protected disclosure. 0103 IAF,
Tab 19 at 5-9.
¶5 Rather than addressing jurisdiction, the administrative judge dismissed the
0103 appeal as withdrawn. 0103 ID. The appellant has filed a petition for
review. Donahue v. Department of Labor, MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-17-0103-
W-1, Petition for Review (0103 PFR) File, Tab 1. The entirety of his petition
consists of the following statement: “In this case both [the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC)] and [the agency] are weaseling out of jurisdiction over a
complaint that the Administrative Law Judge sees as a ‘textbook whistleblower
case.’ For that reason, the [Board] should find some means of jurisdiction to
review the case.” Id. at 3. The agency has filed a response, and the appellant has
replied. 0103 PFR File, Tabs 3-4.
¶6 Soon after filing his petition for review in the 0103 appeal, the appellant
filed the 0169 appeal, with allegations similar to those raised in th e 0103 appeal.
0169 IAF, Tab 1 at 3, 5. He described the 0169 appeal as a whistleblower
complaint, alleging that the agency retaliated against him for filing too many
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335) (USERRA) complaints by
4
denying him services at American Job Centers, including priority job referrals.
Id. at 5.
¶7 The administrative judge construed the 0169 appeal as both an IRA appeal
and a USERRA claim, and issued an order explaining the jurisdictional burdens
for each. 0169 IAF, Tab 2 at 2, Tab 3 at 1, Tab 10 at 2 -3. The agency filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 0169 IAF, Tab 6. After both parties
responded, the administrative judge dismissed the 0169 appeal because the
appellant failed to meet his jurisdictional burden. 0169 ID. The appellant has
filed a petition for review. Donahue v. Department of Labor, MSPB Docket
No. PH-4324-17-0169-I-1, Petition for Review (0169 PFR) File, Tab 1. In that
petition, the appellant does not present any arguments pertaining to jurisdiction.
Instead, he simply reasserts that the agency is improperly denying him services
and alleges that the Board “is being lazy.” Id. at 3. The agency has filed a
response. 0169 PFR File, Tab 3.
The administrative judge improperly dismissed the 0103 appeal as withdrawn.
¶8 An appellant’s withdrawal of an appeal is an act of finality. Page v.
Department of Transportation, 110 M.S.P.R. 492, ¶ 5 (2009). Generally, the
Board will not reinstate a withdrawn appeal absent unusual circumstances , such
as misinformation or new and material evidence. Id. However, a voluntary
withdrawal must be clear, decisive, and unequivocal. Id.
¶9 Here, the appellant titled the pleading discussing withdrawal a “Temp
Withdrawal of Appeal: Going to OSC First.” 0103 IAF, Tab 13 at 1. In it, he
explained that he “expect[ed] to pick up the matter after hearing back from OSC.”
Id. at 3. Later that same day, the appellant submitted pleadings suggesting he had
just found prior OSC complaints he filed in May and December 2016. 0103 IAF,
Tab 14 at 3-9, Tab 16 at 6-18. He also submitted letters from OSC’s Disclosure
Unit corresponding to those complaints, OSC Case Numbers DI-16-3690 and
DI-17-1100, each of which explained that OSC lacked jurisdiction over the
matters because the appellant was not an employee, former employee, or
5
applicant for employment in the Federal Government. 0103 IAF, Tab 16 at 4-5.
Days later, after the agency filed its motion to dismiss the 0103 appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, the appellant filed additional pleadings as if he was still pursuing the
appeal. 0103 IAF, Tabs 19-22. All of this occurred before the administrative
judge dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
¶10 Under these specific circumstances, we find that the appellant’s withdrawal
did not meet the standard of being clear, decisive, and unequivocal. Therefore,
we vacate the initial decision which dismissed the 0103 appeal as withdrawn.
Nevertheless, as detailed below, we find that the appeal must be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant failed to establish jurisdiction over the 0103 appeal.
¶11 The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been
given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation. Maddox v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, it follows that the
Board does not have jurisdiction over all matters alleged to be unfair or incorrect.
Johnson v. U.S. Postal Service, 67 M.S.P.R. 573, 577 (1995).
¶12 The statutory provisions that authorize the filing of IRA appeals such as
this, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214(a)(3), 1221(a), define those individuals entitled to file such
an appeal. Pasley v. Department of the Treasury, 109 M.S.P.R. 105, ¶ 10 (2008);
Glover v. Department of the Army, 94 M.S.P.R. 534, ¶ 9 (2003). Both provisions
limit IRA appeal rights to an employee, former employee, or applicant for
employment. Pasley, 109 M.S.P.R. 105, ¶ 10 (discussing the limitation described
in 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3)); Glover, 94 M.S.P.R. 534, ¶ 9 (discussing the limitation
described in 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a)). Accordingly, the Board has held that Congress
clearly intended to provide IRA appeal rights only to employees, former
employees, and applicants for employment and that it authorized those
individuals to file such appeals only when they themselves were the subject of the
disputed action. Pasley, 109 M.S.P.R. 105, ¶ 10 (finding that the Board lacked
jurisdiction over an individual’s IRA appeal concerning his termin ation from a
6
private sector employer); Glover, 94 M.S.P.R. 534, ¶ 9 (finding that the Board
lacked jurisdiction over an individual’s IRA appeal brought on behalf of her late
husband).
¶13 Another limitation on the Board’s jurisdiction in the context of an IRA
appeal is the action itself. For purposes of an IRA appeal, “personnel actions” are
defined at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A). Pasley, 109 M.S.P.R. 105, ¶ 10. The listed
“personnel actions” include the following: (1) an appointment; (2) a promotion;
(3) an action under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 or other disciplinary or corrective action;
(4) a detail, transfer, or reassignment; (5) a reinstatement; (6) a restoration; (7) a
reemployment; (8) a performance evaluation under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 or under
tile 38; (9) a decision concerning pay, benefits, or awards, or concerning
education or training if the education or training may reasonably be expected to
lead to an appointment, promotion, performance evaluation, or other action
described in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A); (10) a decision to order psychiatric testing
or examination; (11) the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure
policy, form, or agreement; and (12) any other significant change in duties,
responsibilities, or working conditions. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A); see, e.g.,
Weber v. General Services Administration, 54 M.S.P.R. 444, 446 (1992)
(dismissing an IRA appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant’s arrest
by agency police was not a “personnel action”), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1203 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (Table).
¶14 Either of the aforementioned limitations preclude Board jurisdiction in the
0103 appeal. The appellant is a veteran alleging that he was denied employment
services, such as job referrals. 0103 IAF, Tab 1. He has not alleged that he is an
employee, former employee, or applicant for employment, 2 and the action he
2
In several of his other Board appeals, the appellant presented allegations concerning
his nonselections for specific positions with Federal agencies. See, e.g., Donahue v.
Department of Labor, MSPB Docket No. PH-3330-16-0357-I-1, Initial Appeal File,
Tab 1; Donahue v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. PH-3330-16-
0342-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 1. Accordingly, we recognize that the appellant has,
7
disputes is not a “personnel action.” Therefore, the 0103 appeal must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 3
¶15 Because the Board lacks jurisdiction over the 0103 appeal for the
aforementioned reason, we need not address the agency’s arguments that
jurisdiction is also lacking due to the absence of a protected disclosure. 0103
IAF, Tab 19 at 5. However, given our disposition in the 0169 appeal, we note
that the appellant also failed to prove exhaustion in the 0103 appeal, another
requirement for establishing jurisdiction in an IRA appeal. Compare 0103 IAF,
Tab 16 at 4-5 (showing that it was OSC’s Disclosure Unit that addressed the
appellant’s May and December 2016 complaints, OSC Case Numbers DI-16-3690
and DI-17-1100), with Scoggins v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 592,
¶ 9 (2016); Mason v. Department of Homeland Security, 116 M.S.P.R. 135, ¶¶ 8,
16 (2011) (recognizing that disclosures to OSC’s Disclosure Unit do not satisfy
the exhaustion requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3)).
The appellant failed to establish jurisdiction over the 0169 appeal.
IRA Appeal
¶16 As we just alluded to, one jurisdictional limitation for an IRA appeal is the
requirement that an appellant prove that he exhausted his claim with OSC. Supra,
at times, been an applicant for employment. However, the allegations underlying this
appeal do not involve him being an applicant for employment; they involve him being
denied employment services, such as job referrals. See, e.g., 0103 IAF, Tab 1 at 5.
3
We recognize that the appellant’s 0103 appeal repeatedly referenced USERRA and the
Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). E.g., 0103 IAF, Tab 1 at 13.
However, the administrative judge construed this case as an IRA appeal, and the
appellant did not object at any point. 0103 IAF, Tab 3 at 2. In fact, his petition for
review only refers to this as a whistleblower case. 0103 PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. Had the
appellant intended this to be a USERRA or VEOA appeal, it appears that he could have
clearly explained as much, given the numerous USERRA and VEOA appeals he has
previously filed with the Board. See, e.g., Donahue v. Central Intelligence Agency,
MSPB Docket No. DC-3330-12-0411-I-2 (USERRA and VEOA appeal); Donahue v.
Federal Reserve System, MSPB Docket No. DC-3330-12-0691-I-1 (VEOA appeal);
Donahue v. Federal Reserve System, MSPB Docket No. DC-3330-12-0692-I-1
(USERRA appeal).
8
¶ 15; Mason, 116 M.S.P.R. 135, ¶ 8. However, unlike OSC’s Complaints
Examining Unit, OSC’s Disclosure Unit does not review allegations of prohibite d
personnel practices. Mason, 116 M.S.P.R. 135, ¶ 16. As a result, the Board has
held that disclosures to OSC’s Disclosure Unit do not satisfy the exhaustion
requirement in an IRA appeal. Id. Even though the administrative judge in the
0169 appeal warned of this and provided an opportunity to respond, the appellant
failed to show that OSC’s Complaints Examining Unit considered his a llegations;
instead, he provided a January 2017 letter pertaining to OSC Case Number
DI-17-1230, showing only that OSC’s Disclosure Unit considered his allegations.
Compare 0169 IAF, Tab 1 at 16-18, with 0169 IAF, Tab 10 at 2-3. Therefore, to
the extent that the appellant intended to bring an IRA appeal in the 0169 appeal,
the administrative judge correctly found that the appellant failed to meet his
jurisdictional burden of proving exhaustion. 0169 ID at 3 -5.
¶17 Absent any argument or evidence to the contrary on review, we agree with
the administrative judge’s conclusion—the appellant failed to prove exhaustion
for purposes of an IRA appeal in the 0169 appeal. Given our disposition in the
0103 appeal, we also note that the appellant does not meet the req uirements of
5 U.S.C. §§ 1214(a)(3), 1221(a) in the 0169 appeal. See supra, ¶¶ 12-13. In the
context of the 0169 appeal, like the 0103 appeal, the appellant is a veteran
alleging that he was denied employment services, such as job referrals.
0169 IAF, Tab 1 at 5. He is not an employee, former employee, or applicant for
employment against whom a personnel action was taken or proposed to be taken.
See supra, ¶¶ 12-13.
USERRA
¶18 To the extent that the appellant sought to bring a USERRA claim in the
0169 appeal, the administrative judge also found that the appellant failed to
establish jurisdiction. Concerning USERRA’s anti-discrimination provision,
38 U.S.C. § 4311(a), the administrative judge found that the appellant’s
allegations failed because he was not an agency employee or applicant for
9
employment, nor was he denied any benefit of employment. 0169 ID at 5-7; see
Gossage v. Department of Labor, 118 M.S.P.R. 455, ¶ 10 (2012) (recognizing that
an appellant establishes the Board’s jurisdiction over a USERRA discrimination
claim by nonfrivolously alleging that, inter alia, the agency denied him initial
employment, reemployment, retention, promotion, or any benefit of employment).
Concerning USERRA’s anti-retaliation provision, 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b), he found
that the appellant’s allegations failed because they did not involve an adverse
employment action. 0169 ID at 7; see Kitlinski v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 857 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (recognizing that USERRA’s
anti-retaliation provision applies only to “acts of discrimination in emplo yment
and adverse employment actions . . . which [are] generally defined to include
actions adversely affecting [an] employee’s employment status, such as firing,
demotion, suspension, a loss of benefits, or a reduction in pay”).
¶19 The appellant has failed to present any basis for us to reach a conclusion
different from the administrative judge, even when construing his allegations
liberally. See Gossage, 118 M.S.P.R. 455, ¶ 10 (recognizing that USERRA
claims should be broadly and liberally construed for purposes of determining
Board jurisdiction). As discussed throughout this decision, the appellant is a
veteran alleging that he was denied employment services, such as job referrals.
0169 IAF, Tab 1 at 5. He has not presented allegations that involve employment
with the agency, application for employment with the agency, or any other agency
connection that falls within the Board’s jurisdiction.
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
4
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.
10
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:
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.
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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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, o r 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
12
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
5
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
13
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:
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 war rants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
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.
14
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: /s/ for
Jennifer Everling
Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.