Walker v. DVA

Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 05/15/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DAPHNEE WALKER, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent ______________________ 2025-2066 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT-0752-24-0391-C-1. ______________________ Decided: May 15, 2026 ______________________ DAPHNEE WALKER, Clinton, MS, pro se.

NATALEE A. ALLENBAUGH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Before DYK, LINN, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 05/15/2026

2 WALKER v. DVA

PER CURIAM.

Daphnee Walker, who proceeds pro se, petitions for re- view of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied Ms. Walker’s petition for enforcement.

Because the Board’s final decision is not arbitrary, capri- cious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or unsup- ported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

BACKGROUND Ms. Walker was employed as a Medical Support Assis- tant with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA” or “agency”) Medical Center in Jackson, MS. SAppx23–24. 1 In March 2021, Ms. Walker suffered knee injuries while on duty. SAppx24. These injuries led to a series of events which ultimately resulted in Ms. Walker being removed from her position. Id. Ms. Walker appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”).

On January 17, 2025, the Board reversed the agency’s removal and ordered the agency to retroactively restore Ms. Walker effective March 15, 2024, adjust Ms. Walker’s benefits, provide back pay, and inform Ms. Walker of all actions taken to comply with the Board’s January 17, 2025 decision. SAppx26–27. The Board also noted that it was attaching to the decision two lists of information concern- ing the processing of payments and adjustment. SAppx27.

The Board explained that one list applied to agencies whose payroll is administered by the National Finance Center of the Department of Agriculture (“NFC”) and that the other list applied to those whose payroll was adminis- tered by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (“DFAS”). Id. The Board did not state whether NFC or DFAS governed the payroll of VA employees but instead ordered the agency “to timely provide DFAS or NFC with

Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 05/15/2026

WALKER v. DVA 3 all documentation necessary to process payments and ad- justments resulting from the Board’s decision.” Id. (em- phasis added). Relevant here, the NFC list noted that an “AD-343” form must be submitted. SAppx38.

On March 13, 2025, Ms. Walker filed a petition for en- forcement with the Board. SAppx40–43. She noted that the V.A. Medical Center staff “has not complied with” the January 17, 2025 decision. SAppx42. According to Ms. Walker, she “received a form AD-343 in the package,” and after several attempts at contacting VA personnel, she claimed that “[e]veryone denied knowing anything about this form.” Id. She then noted that “I just want what’s rightfully owed to me . . . .” Id. On March 14, 2025, the Board issued an “Acknowledg- ment Order,” in which the Board ordered the agency to re- spond to the petition of enforcement. SAppx1. The agency responded, noting it complied fully with the January 17, 2025 decision. SAppx48. In its response, the agency ex- plained that Ms. Walker was reinstated, received all appli- cable back pay, that no adjustment of benefits was necessary, and that it provided notice to Ms. Walker of these actions on March 18, 2025. Sappx47–48. The agency included supporting documentation with its response. See SAppx50–92. The agency also clarified that the VA does not use the NFC regarding pay issues and thus the “AD-343 does not appear to be a form related to the Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs” and thus is “irrelevant to compli- ance in this matter.” SAppx96.

On May 15, 2025, the Board issued an initial decision, denying Ms. Walker’s petition for enforcement.

SAppx6–17. The Board noted that in her petition for en- forcement, Ms. Walker did not assert that the agency failed to reinstate her or provide back pay but rather asserted a concern with the AD-343 form. SAppx7. But the Board noted that based on the agency’s response to the petition for enforcement, the agency complied with the January 17, 2025 decision and the AD-343 form was unrelated to the Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 05/15/2026

4 WALKER v. DVA

VA. SAppx8. The Board thus denied Ms. Walker’s petition for enforcement. The May 15, 2025 decision became the final decision of the Board on June 19, 2025 (“Final Deci- sion”).

We construe Ms. Walker’s pro se petition to be a peti- tion for review of the Board’s Final Decision. We have ju- risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION We must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find that it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with- out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Higgins v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 955 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

On appeal, Ms. Walker argues “that DFAS/V.A. Medi- cal Center [should] follow the terms of the judgment issued in my case.” Petitioner’s Informal Br. 3. Included with her informal brief is a copy of what appears to be a partially completed AD-343 form, the first page of the Board’s Ac- knowledgment Order, and a copy of the DFAS list, similar to the one attached to the Board’s January 17, 2025 deci- sion. 2 Petitioner’s Informal Br. 4–6. In the AD-343 form where it asks the “nature of action to be taken,” the re- sponse provided is “to enforce judgment.” Petitioner’s In- formal Br. 4.

Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 05/15/2026

WALKER v. DVA 5

Given Ms. Walker’s pro se status, we liberally construe her informal appeal brief as a challenge to the Board’s Fi- nal Decision. We reject Ms. Walker’s challenge. In its Fi- nal Decision, the Board explains that the agency complied with the January 17, 2025 decision and provided Ms. Walker with all required relief. We fail to see any error in this decision that Ms. Walker was afforded the relief due to her, which is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the agency’s documentation of its compliance with the Jan- uary 17, 2025 decision. See SAppx47–92. In addition, Ms. Walker’s informal appeal brief is vague and unsupported.

Ms. Walker fails to identify any evidence or raise any ar- gument demonstrating that the Final Decision was arbi- trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. And to the extent Ms. Walker is challenging the Board’s determina- tion that the AD-343 form was unrelated to the VA, Ms. Walker shows no error with the Board’s determination, which is supported by the agency’s response to Ms. Walker’s petition for enforcement. See SAppx96. 3 CONCLUSION Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s Final Decision.

AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.