(a) Source and applicability. (1) Under paragraph (d) of 5 U.S.C. 7121, an employee who believes he or she has been subjected to discrimination within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), and who may raise the matter under either a statutory procedure such as 5 U.S.C. 7701 or under a negotiated grievance procedure, must make an election between the two procedures. The election of the negotiated grievance procedure “in no manner prejudices” the employee's right to request Board review of the final decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7702. Subsection (a)(1) of section 7702 provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,” when an employee who has been subjected to an action that is appealable to the Board and who alleges that the action was the result of discrimination within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), the Board will decide both the issue of discrimination and the appealable action in accordance with the Board's appellate procedures under section 7701.
(2) This section does not apply to employees of the Postal Service or to other employees excluded from the coverage of the Federal labor management laws at chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) When filed. The appellant's request for Board review must be filed within 35 days after the date of issuance of the decision or, if the appellant shows that he or she received the decision more than 5 days after the date of issuance, within 30 days after the date the appellant received the decision.
(c) Scope of Board review. If the negotiated grievance procedure permits allegations of discrimination, the Board will review only those claims of discrimination that were raised in the negotiated grievance procedure. If the negotiated grievance procedure does not permit allegations of discrimination to be raised, the appellant may raise such claims before the Board.
(d) Contents. The appellant must file the request with the Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419. The request for review must contain:
(1) A statement of the grounds on which review is requested;
(2) References to evidence of record or rulings related to the issues before the Board;
(3) Arguments in support of the stated grounds that refer specifically to relevant documents and that include relevant citations of authority; and
(4) Legible copies of the final grievance or arbitration decision, the agency decision to take the action, and other relevant documents. Those documents may include a transcript or recording of the hearing.
(e) Development of the record. The Board, in its discretion, may develop the record as to a claim of prohibited discrimination by ordering the parties to submit additional evidence or forwarding the request for review to a judge to conduct a hearing.
(f) Closing of the record. The record will close upon expiration of the period for filing the response to the request for review, or to the brief on intervention, if any, or on any other date the Board sets for this purpose. Once the record closes, no additional evidence or argument will be accepted unless the party submitting it shows that the evidence was not readily available before the record closed.
(g) Petition for enforcement. A petition for enforcement of a final Board decision or order that was issued pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, should be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Board and should otherwise comply with the requirements set forth in § 1201.182(a).
[77 FR 62371, Oct. 12, 2012, as amended at 89 FR 72964, Sept. 9, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Jones v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 589 F. App'x 972 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The Board issued a decision on December 31, 2013 in the appeal from the arbitration decision in which it likewise dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in view of its amended regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 (c), which went into effect on November 13, 2012, and provides that, in…”
Harms v. Internal Revenue Serv., 146 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Kan. 2001).
“The TCC informed plaintiff: You must bring the allegations of discrimination contained in this dismissed complaint to the attention of the MSPB, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 . You have the right to petition the EEOC to review the MSPB’s final decision on the discrimination…”
Everett D. JONES, Petitioner, v. Dep't OF the NAVY, Respondent, 898 F.2d 133 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 allows a discrimination issue to be raised before the board after the appeal petition is filed only if the petitioner did not know of the existence of a basis for the allegation at the time the petition for appeal was filed.”
Hay v. Sec'y of the Army, 739 F. Supp. 609 (S.D. Ga. 1990).
“The final decision letter proceeded to advise plaintiff that should he wish to proceed *612 further with this matter, he “must bring the allegations of discrimination contained in this rejected complaint to the attention of the MSPB as part of [his] appeal, pursuant to 5 CFR…”
James v. Levinson, 680 F. Supp. 187 (E.D. Pa. 1988).
“If the appeal to the MSPB was filed, first, the agency shall cancel (in writing) that portion of the mixed case complaint related to the action appealed to the MSPB and advise the complainant, as part of the decision which cancels the complaint (in whole or in part), that (s)he…”
Lasure v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 657 F. App'x 994 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 (a)(1) &(c). . In practice then, the Board exercises jurisdiction over an arbitration decision only when (1) the subject matter of the grievance is one over which the Board has jurisdiction; (2) the appellant either (i) raised a claim of discrimination…”
Ronald Mazzei v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 (b). 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law.”
Shenita Binns v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2025).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 (b). 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law.”
Taunya Jefferson v. Dep't of Labor (MSPB 2015).
· cites it 8× “For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the request for review for failure to meet the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 (d). ¶2 The agency removed the appellant from her position as a Management Staff Assistant with the agency’s Office of Unemployment Insurance for…”
Virgie L. Grant-Brooks v. Dep't of the Treasury (MSPB 2016).
· cites it 3× “2014); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 (a)(1), (c). 4 In non-Postal Service cases, requests for review of arbitration decisions are properly reviewed by the full Board and not by the Board’s administrative judges.”
Gail Avent v. Dep't of Labor (MSPB 2014).
· cites it 4× “§ 7121 (d); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 . For the reasons discussed below, 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law.”
Gail Avent v. Dep't of Labor (MSPB 2014).
· cites it 4× “§ 7121 (d); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155 . For the reasons discussed below, 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law.”
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.