(a) In any case that is reviewed, or reopened at the Board's discretion pursuant to § 1201.118, the Board may:
(1) Issue a decision that decides the case;
(2) Hear oral arguments;
(3) Require that briefs be filed;
(4) Remand the appeal so that the judge may take further testimony or evidence or make further findings or conclusions; or
(5) Take any other action necessary for final disposition of the case.
(b) The Board may affirm, reverse, modify, or vacate the initial decision of the judge, in whole or in part. The Board may issue a final decision and, when appropriate, order a date for compliance with that decision.
(c) The Board may issue a decision in the form of a precedential Opinion and Order or a nonprecedential Order.
(1) Opinion and Order. An Opinion and Order is a precedential decision of the Board and may be appropriately cited or referred to by any party.
(2) Nonprecedential Orders. A nonprecedential Order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. The Board may, in its discretion, include in nonprecedential Orders a discussion of the issue(s) to assist the parties in understanding the reason(s) for the Board's disposition in a particular appeal. Nonprecedential Orders are not binding on the Board or its administrative judges in any future appeals except when it is determined they have a preclusive effect on parties under the doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion), collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), judicial estoppel, or law of the case. Parties may cite nonprecedential Orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and its administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future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.
[76 FR 60707, Sept. 30, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 62370, Oct. 12, 2012; 89 FR 72964, Sept. 9, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Norman Dawson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Off. of Pers. Mgmt., Intervenor, 712 F.2d 264 (7th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 5× “1 The Board reopened the appeal on its own motion 2 based on 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 , 3 and held that attorney’s fees are only available to disability retirement applicants when the Office of Personnel Management initiates the initial proceedings, and since Dawson initiated this…”
McIntosh v. Def., 53 F.4th 630 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 . Moreover, “the board is free to substitute its judgment for that of one of its presiding officials.”
Karl Brookins v. Dep't of the Interior, 2023 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2023).
“3; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c)(2). 6 WIGI; instead, the negotiated grievance procedure is the exclusive means for resolving the dispute.”
Daniels v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 832 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2016).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c)(1). In contrast, "[a] non-precedential Order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law.”
Mitzi Baker v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2022 MSPB 27 (MSPB 2022).
“341 , 350 (1990) (finding the Supreme Court’s analysis of Rule 60(b) was analogous to the Board’s authority to reopen a case under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 ), aff’d, 949 F.2d 404 (Fed.”
Jorge Aviles v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 799 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2015).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c)(2). In contrast, "[a]n Opinion and Order is a precedential decision of the Board and may be appropriately cited or referred to by any party.”
Paul v. Connolly v. United States Dep't of Just., 766 F.2d 507 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 . (It is clear that “reopening” does not require that the presiding official’s decision first become final through expiration of the specified period without filing of an appeal.”
Deborah L. Haines v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 44 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (1993) (“The Board may reopen an appeal and reconsider a decision of a judge on its own motion at any time, regardless of any other provisions of this part.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c) — 7 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.