Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perez v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Decided: April 17, 1991.


Appealed from Merit Systems Protection Board.

Michel, Circuit Judge, Bennett, Senior Circuit Judge, and Clevenger, Circuit Judge.


MICHEL, Circuit Judge

George Perez appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board), dismissing his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Perez v. Department of the Army, 46 M.S.P.R. 284 (MSPB 1990). The Administrative Judge's (AJ) initial decision became final October 24, 1990 [1990 MSPB LEXIS 1515], upon denial of review by the full Board. Because the personnel action Perez contests -- denial of further sick leave and placement in a non-pay AWOL status until he returned to work -- is not an action within the jurisdiction of the MSPB, we affirm.


George Perez was employed as a civilian writer with the Army's Headquarters Aviation Training Brigade at Fort Rucker, Alabama. On January 8, 1990 Perez requested sick leave, for an indefinite period of time, for "evaluation and treatment for polyarticular joint pain." Respondent's Appendix (Resp. App.). The application was signed by Perez's doctor, who certified therein that Perez was "physically incapacitated for work." Id.

Perez's request was initially approved by a staff officer. But on January 24, 1990, Perez's immediate supervisor, Capt. James M. Robertson, wrote a letter to Perez, questioning the justification for the indefinite sick leave and requesting that he either return to work and have his physician provide additional information so that special accommodations could be made for him, or, if he could not work at all, provide medical documentation of his doctor's diagnosis and prognosis.

On March 14, 1990 the Army sent Perez another request for medical documentation, warning that if he did not respond within 15 days, his status would be changed from sick leave to absent without leave (AWOL). On April 2, after no information had been received, the Army placed Perez in AWOL status, in which he remained until he returned to work on May 7, 1990.

After being placed on AWOL status, Perez submitted a letter from his physician on April 5, 1990. The Army's Occupation Health Physician reviewed this letter and determined it to be insufficient to justify continuing Perez in sick leave status.

On May 21, 1990 Perez sought to appeal his placement in AWOL status to the MSPB. Indicating doubt as to whether the MSPB had jurisdiction over the appeal, the AJ issued an acknowledgement order on May 25, 1990 inviting Perez to file evidence and argument establishing that the action was within the Board's jurisdiction. After reviewing the evidence submitted, the AJ issued an initial decision on June 27, 1990 dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On October 24, 1990, the full Board denied Perez's petition for review of the initial decision because it did not meet the criteria for review set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, and the AJ's decision thus became the Board's final decision. Perez v. Department of the Army, 46 M.S.P.R. 284, 1990 MSPB LEXIS 1515 (MSPB 1990).

Perez timely appealed to this court on November 23, 1990.*fn1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (1988).


The MSPB has jurisdiction over appeals only from the types of agency actions specifically enumerated by law, rule, or regulation. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a) (1988); Rose v. Department of Health and Human Services, 721 F.2d 355, 356 (Fed Cir. 1983). These appealable actions include "removal, reduction in grade or pay, suspension for more than 14 days, or furlough for 30 days or less for cause that will promote the efficiency of the service." 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a) (1990) (implementing 5 U.S.C. § 7512). Perez argues that the MSPB has jurisdiction over his appeal because his placement in AWOL status for a period of about 5 weeks reduced his pay and amounted to a constructive suspension.

Title 5 defines "suspension" as "the placing of an employee, for disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without duties and pay." 5 U.S.C. § 7501(2). Our cases have also recognized, however, that certain personnel actions, though not termed "suspensions," may remove an employee's duties and cause a loss of pay, thus producing the same effects as actual suspensions. Such "constructive suspensions" are within the jurisdiction of the MSPB. Thus, in Pittman v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 832 F.2d 598 (Fed. Cir. 1987), we held that the Army's placement of an employee on "enforced leave" due to his medical condition, which prevented him from performing in any ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.