                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


     ARMY COE - TULSA DISTRICT,                      DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellants, 1                     DA-0752-14-0434-I-3

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: May 24, 2016
                 Agency.



             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 2

           Cara A. Wulf, James T. Angel, Jennifer A. Aranda, Raye L.
             Thornton, Ronald J. Goodeyon, pro se.

           Tamar Gerhart, Little Rock, Arkansas, for the agency.


                                           BEFORE

                              Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                                 Mark A. Robbins, Member


                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellants petition for review of an initial decision that affirmed the
     furlough actions. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only when: the
     initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is

     1
       The appellants who are included in this consolidation are set forth in Appendix A to
     this Order.
     2
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 petitioners have 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).

               NOTICE TO THE APPELLANTS REGARDING
                   YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
      You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the
court at the following address:
                          United States Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days
after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27,
2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held
that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and
that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v.
Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
      If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
                                                                                         3

title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff.
Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United
States     Code,    at   our     website,    http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm.
Additional         information         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, 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 Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services
provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation
in a given case.




FOR THE BOARD:                                    ______________________________
                                                  William D. Spencer
                                                  Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
                                                              4

                            APPENDIX A

                     ARMY COE - TULSA DISTRICT
                         DA-0752-14-0434-I-3


Cara A. Wulf                            DA-0752-13-2932-I-3
James T. Angel                          DA-0752-13-1780-I-1
Jennifer A. Aranda                      DA-0752-13-1605-I-3
Raye L. Thornton                        DA-0752-13-1767-I-1
Ronald J. Goodeyon                      DA-0752-13-1760-I-1
