Holly Randle v. Department of the Army, CH-315H-21-0134-I-1

Holly Ann Randle, a probationary nurse with the Department of the Army in Clarksville, TN, was terminated and sought to appeal her termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Randle argued she was misled about her termination, faced differential treatment due to her marital status and lifestyle, and alleged race discrimination and harassment.
The initial MSPB decision dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding she did not nonfrivolously allege a statutory or regulatory basis for the Board's review.
On review, Randle reiterated her previous arguments and attempted to submit additional documents, some of which were not in the original record.
The Board considered whether her claims of marital status discrimination could establish jurisdiction but found her allegations too vague and unsupported.
The Board denied the petition for review, affirming the initial dismissal due to insufficient showing of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Board jurisdiction over probationary firing	Randle asserted misrepresentation and discrimination; claimed jurisdiction based on marital status and other factors	The Army argued Randle failed to allege facts that would bring the case under MSPB jurisdiction	MSPB lacked jurisdiction based on presented facts; no nonfrivolous allegations of statutory or regulatory basis
Discrimination based on marital status	Randle claimed she was treated differently for being unmarried	Army argued there was no evidence or support for jurisdiction or discrimination	Bare allegations inadequate; no nonfrivolous claim made
Submission of new evidence on review	Randle submitted additional documents to support her claims	Army contested their relevance and timeliness	Most evidence was available previously; none changed the outcome
Consideration of prohibited personnel practices	Randle alleged general discrimination and harassment	Army cited lack of independent Board jurisdiction for such claims absent an otherwise appealable action	Board could not address merits without jurisdiction

Sapla v. Department of the Navy, 118 M.S.P.R. 551 (2012) (Arguments on appeal merits are not relevant to jurisdiction)
Wren v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1 (1980), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Prohibited personnel practices do not independently confer Board jurisdiction)