Taft Robinson v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TAFT ROBINSON,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1995
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-3443-25-1467-I-1.
______________________
Decided: February 5, 2026
______________________
TAFT ROBINSON, Stevenson Ranch, CA, pro se.
KELLY WINSHIP, Office of the General Counsel, United
States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC,
for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE MICHELLE
SMITH.
______________________
Before PROST, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

ROBINSON v. MSPB 2
Taft Robinson petitions for review of the July 11, 2025
decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”),
S.A. 1–13,1 dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Robinson is a Census Field Representative in the
U.S. Census Bureau (“agency”) in the Los Angeles, Califor-
nia Regional Office. S.A. 17. On March 18, 2025, the
agency announced to all staff that Voluntary Early Re-
quirement Authority (“VERA”) and Voluntary Separation
Incentive Payments (“VSIP”) would be available to eligible
employees. S.A. 26–27. The agency stated that employees
retiring under VERA must separate “no later than May 3,
2025.” S.A. 26.
Mr. Robinson was interested in separating with VSIP
and submitted an application, which the agency received
April 14, 2025. S.A. 2; Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2. However,
Mr. Robinson did not receive a response from the agency by
the May 3 deadline and therefore he did not resign before
then. S.A. 18. He alleges that the agency’s failure to issue
a “VSIP Approval Letter” by May 3 disqualified him from
receiving VSIP. Id.
Mr. Robinson filed his appeal with the Board on
June 14, 2025. S.A. 16. The administrative judge (“AJ”)
issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, which became the final decision of the Board
on August 15, 2025. S.A. 5, 16. Mr. Robinson’s petition to
this court, although filed prematurely, has since ripened
into an effective timely appeal. See Jones v. HHS, 834 F.3d
1361, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We thus have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in-
cluded with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

ROBINSON v. MSPB 3
DISCUSSION
We decide de novo whether the Board properly dis-
missed Mr. Robinson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mou-
ton-Miller v. MSPB, 985 F.3d 864, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
“The Board does not have plenary appellate jurisdiction
over personnel actions.” Id. at 869. Rather, for the Board
to have jurisdiction, the underlying personnel action must
be “appealable to the Board under [a] law, rule, or regula-
tion.” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). Mr. Robinson bears the burden
of establishing the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance
of the evidence. Mouton-Miller, 985 F.3d at 869.
As relevant here, the Board’s authority to hear appeals
from adverse agency actions is limited by statute to: “(1) a
removal; (2) a suspension for more than 14 days; (3) a re-
duction in grade; (4) a reduction in pay; and (5) a furlough
of 30 days or less.” 5 U.S.C. § 7512.
Before us, Mr. Robinson’s principal argument appears
to be that the agency should not have used the fact that he
worked past the May 3, 2025 deadline to deny his VSIP ap-
plication.2 Rather, he argues the agency should have con-
sidered other factors, like his tenure and veterans’
preference. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2. However, even accept-
ing Mr. Robinson’s argument as to VSIP eligibility, he does
not allege that he was actually removed or separated from
his position. Indeed, Mr. Robinson acknowledges that he
continued to “keep working.” Memorandum in Lieu of Oral
Argument at 2 (Jan. 5, 2026), ECF No. 42. The AJ recog-
nized that despite checking the box for “Separation, demo-
tion or furlough for more than 30 days by reduction in force
(RIF)” in his submission to the Board, S.A. 18,
2 Mr. Robinson does not appear to challenge the
agency’s use of the May 3 deadline for both VERA and
VSIP. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2 (acknowledging “we had to be
separated/quit from the Census Bureau by May 3, 2025”).
Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

ROBINSON v. MSPB 4
Mr. Robinson’s appeal does not allege the agency took any
such action. S.A. 4 n.1. Thus, Mr. Robinson’s appeal does
not involve a “removal,” or any other of the enumerated
personnel actions under § 7512.
Moreover, Mr. Robinson has not cited to any provision
of law governing VSIP that would grant the Board jurisdic-
tion over his alleged disqualification. Mr. Robinson refer-
ences “Public Law 107-296 and [5] U.S.C. § 3522,” which
relates to agency plans for implementing VSIP. Pet’r’s In-
formal Br. 2. However, even those provisions relevant to a
petitioner’s eligibility for VSIP do not give the petitioner
appeal rights at the Board to challenge the denial or dis-
qualification from receiving VSIP. Mr. Robinson points to
no persuasive authority supporting his argument that the
circumstances here confer Board jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Robinson’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2026

-- 4 of 4 --