Akbar Salahuddin v. Department of the Army
Background
- Appellant Akbar Salahuddin was appointed as a competitive‑service GS‑6 HR Assistant effective March 23, 2015, on a 1‑year probationary appointment.
- The agency terminated him for failure to demonstrate fitness effective close of business March 21, 2016.
- Salahuddin appealed to the MSPB, arguing he had completed 365 days and thus had 1 year of current continuous service, giving the Board jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A).
- The administrative judge ordered evidence on jurisdiction; Salahuddin reasserted the 365‑day claim and did not allege partisan political or marital discrimination or procedural violations.
- The AJ found the appellant had served only 364 days, was still a probationer when terminated, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing.
- The Board denied review, concluding the termination occurred during the probationary period (before the last day of probation) and that Salahuddin did not otherwise allege appealable discrimination or procedural defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant completed 1 year of current continuous service and thus qualifies as an "employee" for MSPB jurisdiction | Salahuddin: served 365 days; therefore completed 1 year and has Board appeal rights | Agency: termination occurred during probation; appellant had not completed 1 year by end of tour of duty before anniversary | Held: Appellant did not complete 1 year of service for jurisdictional purposes; first year ended at end of tour on Mar 22, 2016, so termination on Mar 21 was during probation |
| Whether termination before the anniversary date was a valid probationary separation | Salahuddin: contends 365 days equals 1 year so separation was after probation | Agency: separated before the last day of probation (tour ending Mar 22) so valid probationary termination | Held: Separation at close of business Mar 21, 2016, was before the last day of probation and thus a probationary termination |
| Whether appellant alleged alternative bases for appeal (partisan political or marital discrimination, or procedural defects) | Salahuddin: did not allege partisan or marital discrimination; asserted only service length | Agency: no such allegations; argued dismissal appropriate | Held: No allegations of partisan/marital discrimination or procedural violations; these exception grounds not met |
| Whether dismissal without a hearing was appropriate given the jurisdictional record | Salahuddin: renewed jurisdictional claim on review | Agency: relied on administrative record showing termination during probation | Held: Dismissal without hearing affirmed because appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous jurisdictional allegation |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Board’s jurisdiction is limited to matters conferred by law)
- McCormick v. Department of the Air Force, 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explanation of alternate definitions qualifying as a competitive‑service employee)
- Honea v. Department of Homeland Security, 118 M.S.P.R. 282 (2012) (probationary separation must occur before end of tour on day before anniversary)
- Calixto v. Department of Defense, 120 M.S.P.R. 557 (2014) (one year of current continuous service completes at end of tour of duty on day before anniversary)
- McChesney v. Department of Justice, 55 M.S.P.R. 512 (1992) (probationary employees generally have limited MSPB appeal rights)
- Blount v. Department of the Treasury, 109 M.S.P.R. 174 (2008) (probationer may appeal only for specified discrimination or procedural defects)