UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD CHRISTOPHER STUART, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, PH-0841-16-0442-I-1 v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DATE: July 19, 2023 SECURITY, Agency. THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1 Christopher Stuart, Charles Town, West Virginia, pro se. Joanne M. Halley, Washington, D.C., for the agency. BEFORE Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which affirmed the agency’s decision finding that he is ineligible for enhanced Customs Border Protection Officer (CBPO) retirement benefits. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 contains erroneous findings of material fact; 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 jud ge’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 arg ument 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). BACKGROUND ¶2 The appellant is a GS-0895-15 Supervisory CBPO (Program Manager) with the agency’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 21. From January 30, 2000, to July 24, 2004, the appellant worked as a Customs Inspector with the U.S. Customs Service, a position in the GS-1890 job series. IAF, Tab 12 at 44-46. On July 25, 2004, he was reassigned to a CBPO position with CBP, and he has held several CBPO and Supervisory CBPO positions since then. Id. at 12-44. ¶3 By letter dated October 26, 2015, a Supervisory Human Resources Specialist (HRS) with CBP’s Minnesota Hiring Center notified the appellant that his personnel records had been incorrectly coded since April 1, 2007, to indicate he had law enforcement officer (LEO) retirement coverage or enhanced CBPO retirement coverage when, in fact, he was covered under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System. IAF, Tab 5 at 37-38. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals