                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


     GREGORY HUNT,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          CH-3443-14-0105-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: November 6, 2014
                 Agency.



             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           Gregory Hunt, Rock Island, Illinois, pro se.

           James Mercer, Esquire, and Kyle Hayden, New York, New York, for the
             agency.


                                           BEFORE

                              Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                              Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman
                                 Mark A. Robbins, Member


                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal of a written reprimand. Generally,
     we grant petitions such as this one only when:          the initial decision contains
     erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
     the facts of the case; the 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. See 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, and based on the following
     points and authorities, 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).

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2        On October 21, 2013, the agency issued the appellant a letter of reprimand
     for “Discourtesy.” Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 9-10. The appellant filed
     an appeal challenging that action in November 2013.          IAF, Tab 1.     In the
     acknowledgment order, the administrative judge advised the appellant that the
     Board generally does not have jurisdiction over letters of reprimand. IAF, Tab 2.
     In a later jurisdiction order, the administrative judge advised that an exception to
     the rule that written reprimands are not within the Board’s jurisdiction is when
     the reprimand constituted retaliation for activity protected by the Whistleblower
     Protection Act; the administrative judge ordered the appellant to submit evidence
     that he had satisfied the requirement that he first seek corrective action from the
     Office of Special Counsel (OSC).       IAF, Tab 6.    In her initial decision, the
     administrative judge noted that the appellant did not respond to the jurisdiction
     order and had presented no evidence that he had sought corrective action from
     OSC as required by 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision at 3.
                                                                                          3

¶3           In his petition for review, the appellant reiterates his contention that the
     reprimand constituted retaliation for protected whistleblowing, but he has failed
     to submit any evidence that he has sought corrective action from OSC as required
     by 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3).       Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction over this
     appeal.

                       NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                          YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
             You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United
     States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
             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 want to request review of the Board’s decision concerning your
     claims     of   prohibited   personnel   practices   under   5   U.S.C.   § 2302(b)(8),
     (b)(9)(A)(i), (b)(9)(B), (b)(9)(C), or (b)(9)(D), but you do not want to challenge
     the Board’s disposition of any other claims of prohibited personnel practices, you
     may request review of this final decision by the United States Court of Appeals
     for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The
     court of appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days after the
     date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If
     you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. You may choose to request
     review of the Board’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the
     Federal Circuit or any other court of appeals of competent jurisdiction, but not
     both.     Once you choose to seek review in one court of appeals, you may be
     precluded from seeking review in any other court.
                                                                                  4

     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
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 about the United States 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, and 11.
Additional information about other courts of appeals can be found at their
respective       websites,     which       can         be    accessed       through
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
     If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website
at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of attorneys who have expressed
interest in providing 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.
