Merit Systems Protection Board, 2026

Michael Witten v. Department of the Treasury

Merit Systems Protection Board · Decided August 26, 2026

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MICHAEL J. WITTEN, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DC-0752-20-0851-C-3 v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DATE: August 26, 2026

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1 Michael J. Witten , Fort Meade, Maryland, pro se.

Eleanor F. Miller , Byron D. Smalley , and Jhumur Razzaque , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE James J. Woodruff II, Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which denied his third petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement. On review, the appellant reargues that his removal for medical inability constituted disability discrimination as evidenced by the agency’s failure to accommodate him and its use of an invalid removal code in his Standard Form 50. 2 Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 3

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision.

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is:

Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission P.O. Box 77960 Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:

Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M Street, N.E. Suite 5SW12G Washington, D.C. 20507

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 The court of appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Gina K. Grippando Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and 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. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 2 On review, the appellant does not specifically challenge the administrative judge’s finding that his sole claim in his petition for enforcement, i.e., that his August 10, 2020 removal was discriminatory, is barred by collateral estoppel. Witten v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-20-0851-C-3, Compliance File (C-3 CF), Tab 5, Compliance Initial Decision (C-3 CID) at 3-4. Thus, we decline to disturb it. However, we also find that the appellant’s claim is barred by res judicata, based on the initial decision dismissing his removal appeal as settled, which became the Board’s final decision on December 28, 2020. Witten v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-20-0851-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 32, Initial Decision. Res judicata precludes parties from relitigating issues that were, or could have been, raised in the prior action and is applicable if: (1) the prior judgment was rendered by a forum with competent jurisdiction; (2) the prior judgment was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases. See MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security, 2024 MSPB 15, ¶ 9. Here, we find that the December 28, 2020 final decision was a final judgment. See Ford-Clifton v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 661 F.3d 655, 660 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding that an earlier dismissal based on a settlement agreement constituted a final judgment on the merits in a res judicata analysis). Both actions involved the same parties and arose from the appellant’s August 10, 2020 removal, and the discrimination issues that the appellant sought to raise here concerning his removal were known to him at the time of his earlier appeal and could have been litigated then, but instead the appellant chose to waive them under the November 20, 2020 settlement agreement. IAF, Tab 31. Specifically, per the settlement agreement, the appellant agreed “[t]o voluntarily waive any and all rights he may have to challenge, on any basis, in any forum, the Agency’s decision to change the reason for his removal from misconduct to medical inability to perform, and further waives any appeal rights with respect to the removal from medical inability to perform to which he otherwise would be entitled, including the right to challenge the removal in an . . . MSPB appeal . . . .” IAF, Tab 31 at 5. Thus, we find that the appellant’s claim is also barred by res judicata. 3 After the appellant filed the instant petition for review, the Office of the Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that his petition for review appeared to be untimely filed and advised him that it should be accompanied by a motion requesting to accept the filing as timely or waive the time limit for good cause. Witten v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-20-0851-C-3, Compliance Petition for Review File, Tab 2 at 1-2. The appellant did not file a motion or otherwise provide any explanation as to why his petition for review was untimely filed. Because we affirm the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant’s petition for enforcement is barred by collateral estoppel, we do not reach the timeliness issue. 4 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter. 5 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195, 132 Stat. 1510.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.