Daphnee Walker v. Department of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAPHNEE WALKER,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent
______________________
2025-2066
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-0752-24-0391-C-1.
______________________
Decided: May 15, 2026
______________________
D APHNEE WALKER, Clinton, MS, pro se.
N ATALEE A. ALLENBAUGH , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
ELIZABETH M ARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before D YK, L INN, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 05/15/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

WALKER v. DVA 2
P ER CURIAM .
Daphnee Walker, who proceeds pro se, petitions for re-
view of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection
Board, which denied Ms. Walker’s petition for enforcement.
Because the Board’s final decision is not arbitrary, capri-
cious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or unsup-
ported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Walker was employed as a Medical Support Assis-
tant with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA” or
“agency”) Medical Center in Jackson, MS. SAppx23–24.1
In March 2021, Ms. Walker suffered knee injuries while on
duty. SAppx24. These injuries led to a series of events
which ultimately resulted in Ms. Walker being removed
from her position. Id. Ms. Walker appealed her removal
to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”).
On January 17, 2025, the Board reversed the agency’s
removal and ordered the agency to retroactively restore
Ms. Walker effective March 15, 2024, adjust Ms. Walker’s
benefits, provide back pay, and inform Ms. Walker of all
actions taken to comply with the Board’s January 17, 2025
decision. SAppx26–27. The Board also noted that it was
attaching to the decision two lists of information concern-
ing the processing of payments and adjustment. SAppx27.
The Board explained that one list applied to agencies
whose payroll is administered by the National Finance
Center of the Department of Agriculture (“NFC”) and that
the other list applied to those whose payroll was adminis-
tered by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(“DFAS”). Id. The Board did not state whether NFC or
DFAS governed the payroll of VA employees but instead
ordered the agency “to timely provide DFAS or NFC with
1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix ac-
companying the government’s informal response brief.
Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 05/15/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

WALKER v. DVA 3
all documentation necessary to process payments and ad-
justments resulting from the Board’s decision.” Id. (em-
phasis added). Relevant here, the NFC list noted that an
“AD-343” form must be submitted. SAppx38.
On March 13, 2025, Ms. Walker filed a petition for en-
forcement with the Board. SAppx40–43. She noted that
the V.A. Medical Center staff “has not complied with” the
January 17, 2025 decision. SAppx42. According to
Ms. Walker, she “received a form AD-343 in the package,”
and after several attempts at contacting VA personnel, she
claimed that “[e]veryone denied knowing anything about
this form.” Id. She then noted that “I just want what’s
rightfully owed to me . . . .” Id.
On March 14, 2025, the Board issued an “Acknowledg-
ment Order,” in which the Board ordered the agency to re-
spond to the petition of enforcement. SAppx1. The agency
responded, noting it complied fully with the January 17,
2025 decision. SAppx48. In its response, the agency ex-
plained that Ms. Walker was reinstated, received all appli-
cable back pay, that no adjustment of benefits was
necessary, and that it provided notice to Ms. Walker of
these actions on March 18, 2025. Sappx47–48. The agency
included supporting documentation with its response. See
SAppx50–92. The agency also clarified that the VA does
not use the NFC regarding pay issues and thus the
“AD-343 does not appear to be a form related to the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs” and thus is “irrelevant to compli-
ance in this matter.” SAppx96.
On May 15, 2025, the Board issued an initial decision,
denying Ms. Walker’s petition for enforcement.
SAppx6–17. The Board noted that in her petition for en-
forcement, Ms. Walker did not assert that the agency failed
to reinstate her or provide back pay but rather asserted a
concern with the AD-343 form. SAppx7. But the Board
noted that based on the agency’s response to the petition
for enforcement, the agency complied with the January 17,
2025 decision and the AD-343 form was unrelated to the
Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 05/15/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

WALKER v. DVA 4
VA. SAppx8. The Board thus denied Ms. Walker’s petition
for enforcement. The May 15, 2025 decision became the
final decision of the Board on June 19, 2025 (“Final Deci-
sion”).
We construe Ms. Walker’s pro se petition to be a peti-
tion for review of the Board’s Final Decision. We have ju-
risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
We must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find
that it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with-
out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Higgins v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
955 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
On appeal, Ms. Walker argues “that DFAS/V.A. Medi-
cal Center [should] follow the terms of the judgment issued
in my case.” Petitioner’s Informal Br. 3. Included with her
informal brief is a copy of what appears to be a partially
completed AD-343 form, the first page of the Board’s Ac-
knowledgment Order, and a copy of the DFAS list, similar
to the one attached to the Board’s January 17, 2025 deci-
sion.2 Petitioner’s Informal Br. 4–6. In the AD-343 form
where it asks the “nature of action to be taken,” the re-
sponse provided is “to enforce judgment.” Petitioner’s In-
formal Br. 4.
2 This copy of the DFAS list, however, has a check
mark in one of the boxes on the list. Petitioner’s Informal
Br. 4. This check mark was not included in the version at-
tached to the Board’s January 17, 2025 decision. See
SAppx37. This circumstance has no bearing on this appeal.
Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 05/15/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

WALKER v. DVA 5
Given Ms. Walker’s pro se status, we liberally construe
her informal appeal brief as a challenge to the Board’s Fi-
nal Decision. We reject Ms. Walker’s challenge. In its Fi-
nal Decision, the Board explains that the agency complied
with the January 17, 2025 decision and provided Ms.
Walker with all required relief. We fail to see any error in
this decision that Ms. Walker was afforded the relief due to
her, which is supported by substantial evidence, namely,
the agency’s documentation of its compliance with the Jan-
uary 17, 2025 decision. See SAppx47–92. In addition, Ms.
Walker’s informal appeal brief is vague and unsupported.
Ms. Walker fails to identify any evidence or raise any ar-
gument demonstrating that the Final Decision was arbi-
trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise contrary
to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. And to the
extent Ms. Walker is challenging the Board’s determina-
tion that the AD-343 form was unrelated to the VA, Ms.
Walker shows no error with the Board’s determination,
which is supported by the agency’s response to Ms.
Walker’s petition for enforcement. See SAppx96.3
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s Final Decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 The government alternatively argues that Ms.
Walker’s petition for review before this court is untimely
because she did not file it within the non-jurisdictional
60-day period under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). Respondent’s
Br. 9–10. We do not reach this issue because we find that
the Board did not err on the merits.
Case: 25-2066 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 05/15/2026

-- 5 of 5 --