(a) Content. A VEOA appeal may be in any format, including letter form, but must contain the following:
(1) The nine (9) items or types of information required in 5 CFR 1201.24(a)(1) through (a)(9);
(2) Evidence or argument that the appellant is a preference eligible;
(3) A statement identifying the statute or regulation relating to veterans' preference that was allegedly violated, an explanation of how the provision was violated, and the date of the violation;
(4) Evidence that a complaint under 5 U.S.C. 3330a(a) was filed with the Secretary of Labor, including the date the complaint was filed; and
(5) Evidence identifying the specific veterans' preference claims that the appellant raised before the Secretary; and
(b) Request for hearing. An appellant must submit any request for a hearing with the VEOA appeal, or within any other time period the judge sets. A hearing may be provided to the appellant once the Board's jurisdiction over the appeal is established and it has been determined that the appeal is timely. The judge may also order a hearing if necessary to resolve issues of jurisdiction or timeliness. The appellant has the burden of proof with respect to issues of jurisdiction and timeliness (5 CFR 1201.56(a)(2)(i) and (ii)).
(c) Electronic filing. An appeal may be filed electronically by using the Board's e-Appeal site (https://e-appeal.mspb.gov) in accordance with § 1201.14 of this chapter.
[65 FR 5412, Feb. 4, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 49896, Aug. 16, 2000; 68 FR 59865, Oct. 20, 2003; 69 FR 57631, Sept. 27, 2004; 77 FR 62373, Oct. 12, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cyril Oram v. Dep't of the Navy, 2022 MSPB 30 (MSPB 2022).
“Instead, the Board has the authority to decide a VEOA appeal on the merits, without a hearing, when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and one party must prevail as a matter of law. 5 Coats, 111 M.S.P.R.”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
“The Board has used similar wording in addressing the right to a hearing in VEOA appeals, 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (b) ("[a] hearing may be provided”), which the Board interprets as conferring discretion to conduct a hearing, see Sherwood v.”
Jones v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 629 F. App'x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“349 , 353 (2008) (citations omitted); see 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (b) (“[a] hearing may be provided to the appellant” (emphasis added)).”
Young v. Fed. Mediation & Conciliation Serv., 66 F. App'x 858 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“’” While observing that 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (a)(3) requires an appellant to include in his appeal “[a] statement identifying the statute or regulation relating to veterans’ preference that was allegedly violated,” the Board observed both that Mr.”
Anthony Salazar v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2024 MSPB 11 (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 2× “Oram, 2022 MSPB 30, ¶ 9 ; 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (b). Instead, the Board has the authority to decide a VEOA appeal on the merits, without a hearing, when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
John Paul Jones, III v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2016).
“5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (b). The Board has interpreted this regulation as allowing an administrative judge to deny a hearing request in a VEOA case when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Christopher Freeman v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023).
“§ 3330a(a)(2), (d)(1)-(2); 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (a). When the Secretary of Labor has not resolved a complaint within 60 days, the appellant must provide the Board with evidence that he has complied with the statutory requirement that he notify the Secretary of his intention to…”
Ronald Friday v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2022).
“268 , ¶ 13 (2009); see 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (b). Disposition of a VEOA appeal without a hearing is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Cyril Oram v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2022).
“139 , ¶ 12 (2008); 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (b). Instead, the Board has the authority to decide a VEOA appeal on the merits, without a hearing, when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Guy Boyd v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023).
“1 , ¶ 5 (2009); 5 C.F.R. § 1208.23 (b). Given our findings regarding the proper disposition of this appeal, the appellant’s rights were not prejudiced by the administrative judge’s failure to convene a hearing regarding the appellant’s VEOA claim.”
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.