William Francis Raybourn v. Department of the Army
Background
- Appellant William Raybourn (pro se) appealed his placement in furlough status effective July 8, 2013, claiming he was a "deployed civilian" and exempt from furlough.
- The MSPB administrative judge issued an initial decision on December 15, 2014, affirming the agency's furlough; Raybourn did not request a hearing.
- Raybourn, a registered e-filer, was served the initial decision electronically on December 15, 2014; electronic service is deemed received the same day.
- A petition for review (PFR) was due within 35 days (extended to January 20, 2015 because of a holiday); Raybourn filed his PFR on March 9, 2016 — nearly 14 months late.
- The Clerk notified Raybourn that the PFR appeared untimely and directed him to file a motion to accept the late filing or to waive the time limit for good cause; he did not do so.
- Raybourn argued on review that subsequent Board decisions (notably In re Redstone Arsenal, Group B) issued after the filing deadline created good cause for delay; the Board found that post-deadline precedent and nonprecedential initial decisions do not establish good cause and dismissed the PFR as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition for review | Raybourn filed PFR on Mar 9, 2016, asserting later precedent justifies consideration | Agency implicitly argues PFR was untimely and not excused | PFR was untimely (due Jan 20, 2015); dismissed for almost 14-month delay |
| Whether "good cause" exists to waive time limit | Good cause exists because new Board decision (In re Redstone Arsenal, Group B) issued after deadline supports his position | New precedent after the deadline does not excuse late filing; no motion showing due diligence was filed | Post-deadline issuance of new precedent does not constitute good cause; waiver denied |
| Precedential effect of subsequent Board initial decisions | Raybourn relied on In re Redstone Arsenal, Group B to support reversal | Agency and Board note initial decisions are nonprecedential and not controlling authority | Initial decisions are nonprecedential and cannot mandate reversal; reliance on them doesn’t justify late PFR |
Key Cases Cited
- Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180 (1980) (standard for showing good cause for late filing requires due diligence)
- Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60 (1995) (factors for evaluating good-cause waiver)
- Harrison v. Office of Personnel Management, 114 M.S.P.R. 453 (2010) (requiring showing of due diligence to establish good cause)
- Olson v. Department of Agriculture, 91 M.S.P.R. 525 (2002) (post-deadline precedent does not create good cause)
- Deem v. Office of Personnel Management, 58 M.S.P.R. 468 (1993) (same)
- Shiansky v. Department of Transportation, 33 M.S.P.R. 103 (1987) (affirming limits on excusing untimely filings)
- Roche v. Department of Transportation, 110 M.S.P.R. 286 (2008) (initial Board decisions are nonprecedential)
- Rockwell v. Department of Commerce, 39 M.S.P.R. 217 (1988) (initial decisions lack precedential value)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court ordinarily cannot waive statutory filing deadlines)