UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD WINNETT KNOX, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0752-22-0199-I-1 v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DATE: June 22, 2023 Agency. THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1 Winnett Knox, Baytown, Texas, pro se. Patricia Washington, Falls Church, Virginia, for the agency. BEFORE Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member REMAND ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed her appeal of her termination for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND the case to the Dallas Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order. 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 BACKGROUND ¶2 The record in this appeal is sparse but appears to set forth the following facts. According to the appellant, she is a preference eligible who was employed with the agency’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for approximately 5 years. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1. As of June 2021, she was employed with the EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge at the Houston-Greenpoint Park Immigration Court as a Legal Assistant, GS -07, in the competitive service. Id. at 4. Following her voluntary application and selection, the appellant was promoted to the position of Legal Administrative Specialist, GS-09, effective August 15, 2021. Id. at 4, 7. With this promotion, the appellant’s appointment was converted from the competitive service t o the excepted service, and she was subject to a 2-year trial period because her selection was from a Veterans Recruitment Appointment (VRA) authority. Id. at 4. Effective February 17, 2022, the agency terminated the appellant from her Legal Administrative Specialist position based on the charge of conduct unbecoming an employee, which concerned a verbal altercation with a coworker and disrespectful behavior during a subsequent meeting about the altercation . Id. at 4-5. ¶3 On March 10, 2022, the appellant appealed her termination to the Board, arguing that she “was never given an opportunity to rebut[] any of the allegations” against her. IAF, Tab 1 at 8. She did not request a hearing. Id. at 2. Recognizing that the Board may not have jurisdiction over the appellant’s appeal, the administrative judge informed the appellant of what a preference eligible in the excepted service must show to establish the Board’s jurisdiction over her termination, and he ordered her to file evidence and argument constituti ng a nonfrivolous allegation that the termination action is within the Board’s jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 2 at 2-6. After …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals