Tysha S. Holmes v. Department of the Army

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TYSHA S. HOLMES,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1541
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in Nos. AT-0752-11-0263-C-1, AT-0752-11-0263-X-1.
______________________
Decided: March 12, 2026
______________________
T YSHA S. HOLMES , Lexington, SC, pro se.
J OSHUA D AVID T ULLY , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ELIZABETH
M. HOSFORD, P ATRICIA MCCARTHY , BRETT A. SHUMATE.
______________________
Before CHEN, HUGHES , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 1 of 7 --

HOLMES v. ARMY 2
Tysha S. Holmes petitions for review from the Final
Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) find-
ing the Army in compliance with the Board’s previous or-
der. That prior order mandated the Army to halt efforts to
recoup interim relief payments from Ms. Holmes for the pe-
riod between December 15, 2013 and July 9, 2014. See
SAppx 1–12, 167–68.1 For the following reasons, we af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Holmes was employed by the Army as a Physician
Assistant in Fort Jackson, South Carolina. SAppx 216.
The Army removed her from her position on November 17,
2010 for failing to follow instructions, disrespectful behav-
ior towards her supervisor, insubordination, and unauthor-
ized disclosure of medical quality assurance information.
Id. at 194–95, 216–18. An administrative judge reversed
Ms. Holmes’s removal, finding that Ms. Holmes’s due pro-
cess rights were violated “when the deciding official consid-
ered [her] prior disciplinary record without providing her
notice . . . and an opportunity to respond.” Id. at 222. The
administrative judge, however, permitted the Army to “re-
institute a disciplinary action employing constitutionally
correct procedures.” Id. In the meantime, the administra-
tive judge ordered the Army to (1) restore Ms. Holmes to
her position retroactive to November 17, 2010, (2) pay
backpay with interest, (3) adjust benefits with appropriate
credits and deductions, and (4) “provide interim re-
lief . . . in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(2)(A).” Id. at
222–23.
The Army filed a petition for review of this initial deci-
sion, which the Board granted on July 9, 2014. SAppx 204–
05. The Board reversed the initial decision and remanded
1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix filed with the gov-
ernment’s informal brief. Dkt. No. 16.
Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 2 of 7 --

HOLMES v. ARMY 3
the case for a decision on the merits of the removal action.
Id. at 211. In the same decision, the Board also explained
that the Army was excused from distributing interim relief
payments to Ms. Holmes when she was already receiving
compensation from the Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs (OWCP). Id. at 205 n.2. The Board explained
that simultaneously receiving OWCP compensation and in-
terim relief payments would contravene 5 U.S.C. § 8116(a),
which prohibits employees receiving OWCP compensation
from “receiv[ing] salary, pay, or remuneration of any type
from the United States” except under certain conditions
not relevant here. Id.
On remand, an administrative judge affirmed
Ms. Holmes’s removal, SAppx 170–71, and the Board then
affirmed the administrative judge’s findings, SAppx 97–98.
In a separate Board proceeding, Ms. Holmes filed a pe-
tition for enforcement, contending that the Army had im-
permissibly initiated a collection action to recoup the
interim relief payments she received. SAppx 13. An ad-
ministrative judge granted in part and denied in part
Ms. Holmes’s enforcement petition, determining that there
were two relevant time periods: Period One between Janu-
ary 13, 2013 through December 13, 2013, and Period Two
between December 14, 2013 through July 9, 2014.
SAppx13, 15. The administrative judge explained the
Army’s recoupment action for Period One did not violate
the interim relief order because during that period
Ms. Holmes had received both interim relief payments
from the Army and OWCP benefits. Id. at 15–17. The
Army stipulated that Ms. Holmes was entitled to interim
relief payments during Period Two. Id. at 17. The Board
then granted the Army’s petition for review, correcting the
time periods established by the administrative judge to
January 2, 2013 through December 14, 2013 for Period One
and December 15, 2013 through July 9, 2014 for Period
Two. Id. at 165. The Board directed the Army to file evi-
dence of compliance with the decision, including evidence
Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 3 of 7 --

HOLMES v. ARMY 4
showing that it stopped any efforts to recoup interim relief
payments made to Ms. Holmes during Period Two. Id. at
167–68.
On June 13, 2022, the Army filed its statement of com-
pliance, stating in part that it had provided the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with a copy of the
relevant order and that it instructed DFAS to not seek re-
coupment of any interim relief payments made to
Ms. Holmes during Period Two. SAppx 3. Ms. Holmes’s
response argued that the Army’s statement did not include
a calculation of her debt. Id. The Clerk of the Board di-
rected the Army to submit: (1) a narrative statement ex-
plaining the agency’s calculation of Ms. Holmes’s debt
resulting from the incorrectly transmitted interim relief
payments; and (2) evidence of the amounts recouped from
her. Id. at 4. The Army responded by filing a supplemental
statement of compliance that included a six-page narrative
from Jill Snipes, the Debts & Retirements Division Chief
within Civil Pay Operations at DFAS, explaining the cal-
culation of Ms. Holmes’s debt and recoupment amounts.
See id. at 50–89. Ms. Holmes, in response, asserted the
Army filed “overly technical documents” that were incom-
prehensible. Id. at 44.
On January 15, 2025, the Board issued a Final Order
finding that the Army had sufficiently established
Ms. Holmes’s debt for Period One, and that it had not
sought recoupment for interim relief payments made for
Period Two. SAppx 1–7. Ms. Holmes timely filed a petition
for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), we may set aside an action of
the Board only if it was “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or
regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 4 of 7 --

HOLMES v. ARMY 5
substantial evidence.” McIntosh v. Dep’t of Def., 53 F.4th
630, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Ms. Holmes,
as the petitioner, bears the burden of establishing that the
Board committed reversible error. See Harris v. Dep’t of
Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Ms. Holmes argues that the Army did not provide suf-
ficient evidence and explanation for how it calculated her
debt. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 5. Among many purported
deficiencies, Ms. Holmes alleges that the Army did not pro-
vide the source documents for the many spreadsheets and
“[t]herefore there is no way to verify the data” in the Army’s
spreadsheets. Id. at 5–6. Ms. Holmes’s argument is not
persuasive.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determina-
tion that the Army complied with the Board’s order to ex-
plain its calculations of Ms. Holmes’s debt accrued during
Period One. The Army “provided a narrative and spread-
sheets with detailed information for the relevant time pe-
riod, explaining how the appellant’s debt was calculated.”
SAppx 4. In the supplemental statement of compliance,
Ms. Snipes explained in detail how the Army calculated
Ms. Holmes’s gross debt. See id. at 56–62. All the calcula-
tions she described are based on specific line items in a
25-page workbook documenting payments, returned
checks, returned electronic funds transfers, and withhold-
ings made for specific pay periods. See id. at 63–87. The
Board reasonably concluded, based on Ms. Snipes’s expla-
nation, that the Army complied with the Board’s order. Id.
at 4–7. And, as the Board found below, Ms. Holmes pro-
vides no specific challenges to the agency’s calculations; nor
has she argued that she returned unaccounted payments
to the agency. See id. at 6. She also has neither argued
nor shown that she never received the payments described
in the Army’s calculations.
To the extent Ms. Holmes suggests that the Army
failed to comply with the Board’s order not to seek
Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 5 of 7 --

HOLMES v. ARMY 6
recoupment of interim relief payments during Period Two,
she identifies no evidence that the Army took action to re-
coup those payments. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 8–9 (ques-
tioning why there were debts “generated” during Period
Two, not showing that the Army actively attempted to col-
lect those debts). Ms. Holmes, moreover, does not dispute
the declarations provided by the Army that “DFAS has
stopped any effort to recoup the interim relief payments
made to the Appellant during the period from December
15, 2013, through July 9, 2014.” SAppx 161; see also SAppx
61 (another Army declarant explaining that, “[i]n regards
to December 15, 20[1]3 to July 9, 2014 when the Employee
properly received only interim relief benefits, which the
Army could not recoup, no amount has been recouped from
the Employee attributable to that period of time”); Pet’r’s
Informal Reply 1–3. Substantial evidence therefore sup-
ports the Board’s determination that the Army complied
with the Board’s order.
Ms. Holmes also contends that her constitutional right
to due process was violated. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 5, 7,
10, 12. We are not persuaded. “The fundamental require-
ment of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Edwards
v. Shinseki, 582 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332–33 (1976)). Due
process requires “a fair hearing on the merits” of a claim.
Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Ms. Holmes does not offer any evidence that she was not
meaningfully afforded the opportunity to be heard. On the
contrary, the extensive procedural record includes orders
from several administrative judges and multiple hearings
before the Board.
Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 6 of 7 --

HOLMES v. ARMY 7
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Holmes’s remaining argu-
ments but find them unpersuasive.2 For the foregoing rea-
sons, the Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection
Board is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
2 This includes arguments submitted in Appellant’s
Mem. in Lieu of Oral Arg. Dkt. No. 24.
Case: 25-1541 Document: 25 Page: 7 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 7 of 7 --