Jones v. Armed Forces Retirement Home, 16-2265

John Paul Jones, III, a Vietnam-era veteran, applied in Sept. and Dec. 2014 for a Health System Administrator (HSA) position at the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) under two announcements: a merit/status promotion and a delegated examining (open) announcement.
AFRH withdrew the September postings for lack of candidates with recent long-term care experience and reposted in December with updated experience requirements.
Jones applied to both December postings; he was disqualified from the status posting for failing to submit a performance appraisal and the AFRH made no selection under the delegated examining posting. Six other candidates were also disqualified for the missing appraisal.
AFRH selected Michael Bayles under the status posting. Bayles had extensive healthcare experience, relevant education (nursing degree and an MHA), prior AFRH work, and high interview scores; veterans’ preference did not control selection for that posting.
Jones alleged USERRA discrimination and retaliation (and had filed a prior VEOA complaint). The Merit Systems Protection Board denied relief, finding no USERRA-motivated discrimination or retaliation and that AFRH’s nonselection of Jones was supported by non-discriminatory reasons. The Federal Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Jones's Argument	AFRH's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction over appeal filed before Board decision became final	Jones implicitly argued appeal ripe under precedent allowing premature appeals to ripen	Gov argued appeal was premature and court lacked jurisdiction because Board decision not final	Court held it had jurisdiction, following precedent that appeals filed after initial decision can ripen when Board later issues final order
USERRA discrimination (initial hiring)	Jones argued military service was a motivating factor; pointed to reposting and selection of Bayles who allegedly lacked required long-term care experience	AFRH argued selection based on Bayles’s superior qualifications, experience, education, interview scores; Jones was disqualified from status posting for non-submission	Court held Board’s finding supported by substantial evidence that Jones failed to show military service was a motivating factor; even if he had, AFRH would have made same decision for legitimate reasons
USERRA retaliation (prior VEOA complaint and other litigation)	Jones argued AFRH retaliated for his prior legal challenges seeking VEOA relief	AFRH argued it was either unaware of Jones’s prior litigation or that such litigation did not motivate the hiring decision; selection based on legitimate qualifications	Court held Board’s conclusion supported by substantial evidence that prior litigation did not motivate AFRH’s decision; no retaliation proven

Crawford v. Dep’t of the Army, 718 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining substantial-evidence review of administrative findings)
Parker v. U.S. Postal Serv., 819 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (defining substantial-evidence standard)
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) (definition of substantial evidence)
Jones v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 834 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (premature appeals to this court may ripen after Board renders final decision)
Welshans v. U.S. Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (de novo review of Board legal determinations)
Sheehan v. Dep’t of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (factors to infer USERRA discriminatory motivation)