Marcus Aurelius James v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARCUS AURELIUS JAMES,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1908
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-3443-21-0251-I-1.
______________________
Decided: December 5, 2025
______________________
MARCUS J AMES , Miramar, FL, pro se.
ELIZABETH W. F LETCHER , Office of the General Coun-
sel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON
J ANE BOYLE, K ATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH .
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1908 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

JAMES v. MSPB 2
P ER CURIAM .
Marcus James challenges pro se a final order of the
Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed herein, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. James was employed as a GS-13 Assistant Human
Resources Officer with a regional healthcare system of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA” or “agency”). Begin-
ning in October 2019, he was placed on detail as a GS-14
Human Resources Officer (“HRO”). Despite assuming a
higher-grade position with additional responsibilities, he
did not receive a pay raise during his detail.
The VA Handbook sets forth the following guidelines
for permissible length of details to higher grade positions:
(2) Extension of Details Beyond 120 days. …
Details of 120 days to higher graded positions …
may be extended for an additional 120 days (maxi-
mum period of 240 days). If a detail of more than
120 days is made to a higher graded position, or to
a position with known promotion potential, it must
be made under competitive promotion procedures.
Appx35 (citing VA Handbook No. 5005, Staffing pt. III,
Ch. 2, para. 13(c)(2)).1 Notwithstanding these prescribed
maximum lengths, Mr. James was detailed until February
2021—or approximately 500 days.
Shortly after Mr. James’ GS-14 detail began, Raquel
Bulford-Frazier was detailed to Acting Associate Director
(“AAD”) of Mr. James’ facility. Mr. James alleges several
1 “Appx” refers to the appendix accompanying Re-
spondent’s Informal Brief, which is docketed at ECF
No. 26.
Case: 24-1908 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

JAMES v. MSPB 3
run-ins with Ms. Bulford-Frazier during her tenure as
AAD. First, Mr. James alleges that Ms. Bulford-Frazier
overheard him tell an innocuous joke to work colleagues,
and she then reported him to the facility director. Second,
when Mr. James confronted Ms. Bulford-Frazier to ask
why she did not discuss the issue with him instead of going
straight to the director, she allegedly responded with a ra-
cially insensitive remark. Mr. James reported this remark
to several individuals in human resources. Third, Mr.
James alleges he witnessed Ms. Bulford-Frazier looking
through personnel files in the staffing supervisor’s office.
Afterward, he instructed the staffing director never to al-
low anyone other than HR staff to review those files.
In November 2019, the agency posted a job opening for
the HRO position. Mr. James interviewed for the position.
His interview panel included Ms. Bulford-Frazier, who
rated him significantly lower than the other two panelists.
He was not selected for the job.
On February 25, 2021, Mr. James filed an appeal with
the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). Mr. James
alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment
during his over-extended detail and that his non-selection
for promotion was in retaliation for reporting Ms. Bulford-
Frazier’s behavior. The Administrative Judge (“AJ”) is-
sued an initial decision dismissing Mr. James’ appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. In the initial decision, the AJ con-
densed the appeal to a single issue—whether the agency
engaged in an appealable adverse action when it “did not
select [Mr. James] for a GS-14 Human Resources position.”
Appx17. The Board found that non-selection was not an
appealable agency action over which it has jurisdiction and
dismissed Mr. James’ appeal.
Mr. James petitioned for review of the initial decision.
In his petition, Mr. James averred multiple times that he
was not challenging his non-selection or that non-selection
was an appealable adverse action. E.g., Appx36 (“I want to
Case: 24-1908 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 12/05/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

JAMES v. MSPB 4
be clear that this appeal has nothing to do with my non-
selection to the position.”). Instead, Mr. James focused on
his extended detail and hostile work environment. The
Board issued a final decision affirming the initial decision
but expanding the issues on appeal to “prohibited person-
nel practices surrounding an alleged hostile work environ-
ment, a higher-level detail assignment, and a non-selection
for a permanent appointment.” Appx1–2. Mr. James ap-
pealed to this court. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing Board decisions, this Court shall “hold un-
lawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclu-
sions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) ob-
tained without procedures required by law, rule, or regula-
tion having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Whether the
Board has jurisdiction over an appeal is a question of law,
which is reviewed de novo. Jones v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
98 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Board’s underly-
ing findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.
Parrott v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 519 F.3d 1328, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2008).
D ISCUSSION
Before the Board, Mr. James alleged three categories
of claims: (1) adverse agency actions in the form of an ex-
tended detail and hostile work environment; (2) race-based
discrimination; and (3) whistleblowing retaliation. On ap-
peal, Mr. James argues the Board erroneously dismissed
all three. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Appealable Agency Action
Mr. James argues the Board erred by dismissing his
claims that the VA took appealable adverse action by
Case: 24-1908 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 12/05/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

JAMES v. MSPB 5
(1) placing him on an extended detail without proper com-
pensation, and (2) subjecting him to a hostile work environ-
ment.2 Informal Br. 1.3 We agree with the Board that
neither of these actions are appealable.
“The Board does not have plenary appellate jurisdic-
tion over personnel actions.” Mouton-Miller v. Merit Sys.
Prot. Bd., 985 F.3d 864, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Pursuant to
5 U.S.C. § 7512, there are five categories of actions appeal-
able to the Board: “(1) a removal; (2) a suspension for more
than 14 days; (3) a reduction in grade; (4) a reduction in
pay; and (5) a furlough of 30 days or less.” A work detail or
reassignment may therefore only qualify as an appealable
agency action if it results in the reduction of grade or pay.
See 5 U.S.C. § 7512; Machulas v. Dep’t of Air Force, 463 F.
App’x 908, 909–10 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, Mr. James al-
leged before the Board that while he was detailed to a
higher-grade position, he did not receive additional com-
pensation. Appx45. He does not claim that his compensa-
tion was reduced. Id. Thus, while Mr. James may feel
aggrieved because he did not receive additional compensa-
tion during his detail or because he was detailed too long,
those circumstances do not create an appealable action un-
der Section 7512. Likewise, a hostile work environment,
on its own, does not satisfy any of the five appealable
agency actions listed in Section 7512. See Harris v. Dep’t
of Def., No. 2023-1677, 2024 WL 2288182, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
May 21, 2024) (finding Board lacked jurisdiction over har-
assment and discrimination claims absent alleged
2 Mr. James also argued before the Board that his
non-selection for promotion to the HRO position was an ad-
verse agency action. However, Mr. James waived that ar-
gument in his petition for review of the Board’s initial
decision. Appx35–37.
3 “Informal Br.” refers to Mr. James’ Opening Brief
docketed at ECF No. 23.
Case: 24-1908 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 12/05/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

JAMES v. MSPB 6
appealable action). Thus, we see no error in the Board’s
determination that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. James’
work detail and hostile work environment allegations.
Stand-alone Discrimination
Mr. James argues that the Board erred by dismissing
his claims of race-based discrimination. Informal Br. 1.
But as the Board noted in its final decision, Appx5, the
Board lacks jurisdiction over stand-alone discrimination
claims. Cruz v. Dep’t of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1245 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (en banc) (“The Board has not been granted ju-
risdiction over Title VII claims per se, i.e., over ‘pure’ or
‘naked’ Title VII claims unaccompanied by an appealable
action over which the Board does have jurisdiction.”). We
find no error in the Board’s determination that it lacks ju-
risdiction over discrimination claims unaccompanied by an
appealable adverse action.
Individual Right of Action
Mr. James also challenges the Board’s dismissal of his
retaliation claims pursuant to an individual right of action
(“IRA”) under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”).
Informal Br. 1. As noted in the Board’s final decision, it
has jurisdiction over Mr. James’ IRA appeal only if he ex-
hausted the administrative remedies available to him be-
fore the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”). Appx7. The
Board found Mr. James provided “no evidence” that he “ex-
hausted his administrative remedies as to claims of whis-
tleblower reprisal.” Appx8. The Board discussed that
Mr. James denied on his initial appeal form that he had
filed a whistleblowing complaint with OSC. Id. The Board
further noted that, although the record “briefly indicates”
Mr. James spoke with OSC, any such investigation was
“likely based … on claims of race and sex discrimination.”
Id.
This court reviews the Board’s findings of fact underly-
ing jurisdictional decisions for substantial evidence.
Case: 24-1908 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 12/05/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

JAMES v. MSPB 7
Parrott, 519 F.3d at 1334 (citing 5 U.S.C.§ 7703(c)). Here,
we find substantial evidence supports the Board’s determi-
nation of no exhaustion of administrative remedies. Apply-
ing this factual finding, the Board determined that
Mr. James failed to meet the jurisdictional prerequisites
for an IRA appeal. We sustain the Board’s finding that it
lacks jurisdiction over Mr. James’ whistleblower reprisal
claim. To be clear, we make no conclusion as to whether
Mr. James possesses a valid IRA whistleblower retaliation
claim.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. James’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1908 Document: 31 Page: 7 Filed: 12/05/2025

-- 7 of 7 --