Opinion

Gloria Sanford v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Feb 24, 2023
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 22.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GLORIA J. SANFORD, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DE-1221-17-0176-W-1

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: February 24, 2023

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Gloria J. Sanford, Littleton, Colorado, pro se.

Patrick A. Keen, Shreveport, Louisiana, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction .

Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following

circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not

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

Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,

which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

¶2 As further detailed in the initial decision, the appellant filed the instant

appeal, seeking to challenge the purported inaction of the Office of Special

Counsel (OSC) on a complaint she filed involving the Department of Veterans

Affairs (the agency). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, 5, Tab 22, Initial

Decision (ID) at 1. The administrative judge construed the matter as an IRA

appeal against the agency. IAF, Tab 3 at 1; ID at 1-2.

¶3 The administrative judge issued an initial decision that explained the

Board’s jurisdictional limitations in IRA appeals and instructed the appellant to

meet her jurisdictional burden. IAF, Tab 3. After both parties responded to the

order, IAF, Tabs 5-6, 10-15, 17-19, the administrative judge issued an initial

decision that dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ID at 6. He found that

the appellant failed to prove that she first exhausted any retaliation claim with

OSC before coming to the Board. ID at 4-6.

¶4 After the administrative judge issued the initial decision, the appellant filed

numerous pleadings that were rejected as untimely. IAF, Tabs 25 -29. The

appellant then filed this petition for review, in which she stated the following,

without argument: “I am requesting a review based on all the information I

detailed and sent . . . on March 17, 2017.” Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1

at 3. The reference to March 17, 2017, implicates some of the aforementioned

pleadings, which were rejected and are not part of the existing record. IAF,

Tabs 26-28.

¶5 The Office of the Clerk of the Board provided the appellant with an

opportunity to supplement her petition for review, which she did. PFR File,

Tabs 2-3. That supplement contains arguments suggesting that the administrative

judge erred in denying the appellant’s motion for recusal and he should have

permitted further argument on that motion. PFR File, Tab 3 at 3. The

supplement does not contain any arguments concerning her failure t o establish

Board jurisdiction. Id. Although the appellant submitted several additional

pleadings and an improper motion for leave to submit an additional pleading

before the agency filed its response to her petition, these were rejected. PFR File,

Tabs 4-8, 10; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5). Thereafter, the agency filed its

timely response to the appellant’s petition, and she replied. PFR File,

Tabs 11-12. 2

¶6 A petition for review must contain sufficient specificity for the Board to

ascertain whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge justifying a complete

review of the record. Tines v. Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92

(1992). Under the Board’s regulations, a petition for review must identify

specific evidence in the record demonstrating any alleged erroneous findings of

material fact and explain why the challenged factual determinations are incorrect.

5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(a).

Before the agency filed the response to the petition for review, the appellant also filed

a proper motion for leave to submit an additional pleading, asserting that she has

evidence supporting recusal of the administrative judge and a “new adjudication.” PFR

File, Tab 9. Because the appellant admits in her motion that she was aware of the

additional information she seeks to submit at the time she filed her petition for review,

we deny her motion for leave as the appellant could have included this information in

her petition for review or supplement.

¶7 Because the appellant has filed her petition for review pro se, we have

construed it liberally. Harper v. Office of Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R.

309, ¶ 9 (2011). Nevertheless, we are unable to discern any specific challenges

she makes to the administrative judge’s jurisdictional findings.

¶8 As the administrative judge correctly recognized, an appellant’s

jurisdictional burden in an IRA appeal includes proving t hat she exhausted her

administrative remedies with OSC. IAF, Tab 3 at 2; ID at 2 -3; see Edwards v.

Department of the Air Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 307, ¶ 15 (2013). The Board has

consistently held that it may only consider the specific allegations of reprisal

which have been presented to OSC. E.g., Coufal v. Department of Justice,

98 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 14 (2004). In this case, the administrative judge found that the

appellant failed to meet the exhaustion requirement because she provided minimal

evidence of correspondence with OSC and none that involved allegations of

retaliation. ID at 3-5. We discern no basis for concluding otherwise. See, e.g.,

IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 19 at 5.

¶9 Separately, we have considered the appellant’s arguments concerning

recusal, including those asserted below. PFR File, Tab 3 at 3; IAF, Tab 20 at 4.

In short, the appellant argued that the administrative judge could not be impartial

in the instant appeal because the appellant requested review of his dismissal in

another Board appeal. IAF, Tab 20 at 4 (referencing Sanford v. Department of

the Interior, MSPB Docket No. DE-3443-17-0175-I-1). We disagree.

¶10 In making a claim of bias or prejudice against an administrative judge, a

party must overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity t hat accompanies

administrative adjudicators. Oliver v. Department of Transportation, 1 M.S.P.R.

382, 386 (1980). An administrative judge’s conduct during the course of a Board

proceeding will warrant a new adjudication only if his comments or actions

evidence “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

impossible.” Bieber v. Department of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed.

Cir. 2002) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Here, the

appellant has failed to identify anything of the sort.

¶11 Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

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).

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 in dicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

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

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, 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 2 302(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