# Quan Howard v. Office of Personnel Management

> Merit Systems Protection Board · June 7, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9987048

## Case

- **Court:** Merit Systems Protection Board
- **Decided:** June 7, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/9987048

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

QUAN P. HOWARD, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, SF-0841-20-0355-I-1

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: June 7, 2024
MANAGEMENT,
Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Lawrence Berger , Esquire, Glen Cove, New York, for the appellant.

Jane Bancroft and Alison Pastor , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman
Henry J. Kerner, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his appeal as untimely filed without a showing of good cause for the
filing delay. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one 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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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).
Generally, a Board appeal must be filed no later than 30 days after the
effective date, if any, of the action being appealed, or 30 days after the date of
receipt of the agency’s decision, whichever is later. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1).
However, the Board’s regulations further provide that an appellant “may not
avoid service of a properly addressed and mailed decision by intentional or
negligent conduct which frustrates actual service.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(3). For
example, “[a]n appellant who fails to pick up mail delivered to his or her post
office may be deemed to have received the agency decision.” Id. Here, the
record reflects that OPM mailed its final decision to the appellant’s address of
record by U.S. Postal Service (USPS) certified mail on June 25, 2019. Initial
Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 9-10, 12. Tracking indicates, and the appellant does
not dispute, that USPS attempted delivery and left a notice at his address on
June 28, 2019. Id. at 9.
Contrary to what the appellant suggests on review, the administrative judge
did not take official notice that he received a properly completed PS Form 3849,
bearing the name and address of the sender. Rather, she took official notice of
the verifiable fact that the PS Form 3849 contains a section for that purpose.
3

IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision at 5 n.4; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.64 (providing that an
administrative judge “may take official notice of matters of common knowledge
or matters that can be verified”); USPS, PS Form 3489 Redelivery Notice, https://
faq.usps.com/s/article/PS-Form-3849-Redelivery-Notice (last visited June 7,
2024). The appellant does not dispute that this is an accurate description of the
form itself.
Moreover, the appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of opportunity to
object to the taking of official notice on this issue. We recognize that, while
5 C.F.R. § 1201.64 provides only that an administrative judge “may” provide the
parties an opportunity to object to the taking of official notice, the Board has
stated that it nonetheless regards parties as having a “right of refutation.” Hope
v. Department of the Army, 108 M.S.P.R. 6, ¶ 9 (2008). However, as noted
above, it is a verifiable and undisputed fact that the PS Form 3849 contains a
section for name and address of the sender. Hence, even if the administrative
judge erred in not providing the appellant an opportunity to object to the taking of
official notice, the error would not require a different result. See Karapinka v.
Department of Energy, 6 M.S.P.R. 124, 127 (1981) (holding an administrative
judge’s procedural error is of no legal consequence unless it is shown to have
adversely affected a party’s substantive rights).
We agree with the appellant that the record does not clearly establish that
the notice actually left at his address on June 28, 2019, was a properly completed
PS 3849 bearing the name and address of OPM. However, the Board’s regulation
at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(3) does not require knowledge of the sender’s identity as
a condition of constructive delivery. Even if the appellant was unaware that the
item was a letter from OPM, he was still on notice that USPS had attempted to
deliver it and that he would need to pick it up at the post office or arrange to have
it delivered at a later date. He has not explained his failure to take such ordinary
measures. Accordingly, we deem June 28, 2019, to be the date of receipt and find
that his appeal was untimely filed by 249 days.
4

To establish good cause for the untimely filing of an appeal, a party must
show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular
circumstances of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R.
180, 184 (1980). To determine whether an appellant has shown good cause, the
Board will consider the length of the delay, the reasonableness of his excuse and
his showing of due diligence, whether he is proceeding pro se, and whether he has
presented evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond his control that
affected his ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or
misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely
file his petition. Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63
(1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table). Here, the appellant, who is
represented by counsel, could have argued in the alternative that there was good
cause for his untimely filing, but he did not do so. Silence does not constitute a
showing of good cause. Lewis v. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 96 M.S.P.R. 479, ¶ 6 (2004) (good cause not shown where the
appellant failed to provide any explanation for her more than 2-month delay in
seeking review of the initial decision that dismissed her appeal as settled).
Hence, we discern no error in the administrative judge’s decision to dismiss the
appeal as untimely filed without a showing of good cause for the delay.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
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

2
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

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.
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
6

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
7

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. 3 The court of appeals must receive your

3
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

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:
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/9987048. Public record. Not legal advice.