Wesley Meaders v. Department of Commerce

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
WESLEY WELDON MEADERS,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Agency.
DOCKET NUMBER
AT-0752-25-1632-I-1
DATE: October 9, 2026
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1
Wesley Weldon Meaders, Saint Marys, Georgia, pro se.
Stacy Long, Esquire, and Chieko M. Clarke, Esquire, Alexandria, Virginia,
for the agency.
BEFORE
Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman
James J. Woodruff II, Member
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant
petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision
contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an
erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of
the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either
1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).

the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required
procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the
outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available
that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record
closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that
the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting
the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and
AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113(b).
The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been
given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation. Maddox v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). An appellant has the burden
of establishing jurisdiction over his appeal, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A), and is
entitled to a jurisdictional hearing if he raises a nonfrivolous allegation of Board
jurisdiction, Ferdon v. U.S. Postal Service, 60 M.S.P.R. 325, 329 (1994).
Here, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that the
appellant did not make a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction. Initial
Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7, Initial Decision at 6 n.5. To this end, we agree that the
appellant, who was appointed pursuant to a Veterans Recruitment Appointment
(VRA)2 and terminated after working at the agency for approximately 10 months,
IAF, Tab 2 at 2-3, did not nonfrivolously allege that he is an “employee” with
statutory Board appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1), IAF, Tabs 1-2, 4; see
5 U.S.C. §§ 7512(1), 7513(d). Moreover, he did not make a nonfrivolous
allegation that the agency action was based on partisan politics, marital status, or
2 VRAs are excepted appointments to positions otherwise in the competitive service.
5 C.F.R. § 307.103. Individuals appointed pursuant to a VRA are granted the same
appeal rights as competitive service employees if, as here, they are terminated during
the first year of their trial periods. Maibaum v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
116 M.S.P.R. 234, ¶ 18 (2011); 5 C.F.R. § 307.105.
2

preappointment reasons. IAF, Tabs 1-2, 4; see Tarr v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 115 M.S.P.R. 216, ¶ 10 (2010); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 315.805-315.806
(2024).3
We have considered all of the appellant’s assertions on review but find that
none warrants a different outcome. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 5.
For example, the appellant alleges that, although he did not request a hearing, the
administrative judge nonetheless should have held one to resolve conflicting
evidence. E.g., PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, 10, Tab 5 at 5. This assertion is unavailing.
Indeed, accepting all of the appellant’s assertions as true, we find that he has not
made a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction. PFR File, Tabs 1, 5; IAF,
Tabs 1-2, 4; see Ferdon, 60 M.S.P.R. at 329; see also 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s).
The appellant also alleges agency errors and misrepresentations on the part
of agency officials.4 E.g., PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. Additionally, he asserts that his
performance was improving and that he would have been successful in his
position if he had been given 2 full years. Id. at 8; PFR File, Tab 5 at 16.
However, these assertions do not warrant a different jurisdictional outcome. See
Walker v. Department of the Army, 119 M.S.P.R. 391, ¶ 14 (2013) (explaining
that preappointment reasons do not include post -appointment performance
deficiencies); see also Burton v. Department of the Air Force, 118 M.S.P.R. 210,
3 Effective June 24, 2025—after the appellant’s termination—the Office of Personnel
Management rescinded subpart H of part 315 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations pursuant to Executive Order No. 14,284. Strengthening Probationary
Periods in the Federal Service, 90 Fed. Reg. 26727-01 (June 24, 2025).
4 For instance, the appellant alleges that agency personnel (1) provided conflicting
information regarding the length of his probationary period and (2) informed him that
he had 2 full years to demonstrate his ability to perform his job duties. E.g., PFR File,
Tab 1 at 6, Tab 5 at 5; see Calixto v. Department of Defense, 120 M.S.P.R. 557,
¶ 17 n.6 (2014) (indicating that an agency’s failure to inform an appellant of a
probationary period requirement does not confer “employee” status on the appellant);
see also LaBoube v. Department of the Treasury, 105 M.S.P.R. 337, ¶ 8 (2007) (stating
that an agency’s failure to provide accurate information at the time of appointment
regarding the requirement of a trial period is not a basis for waiving such a
requirement).
3

¶ 16 (2012) (indicating that, when the Board does not have jurisdiction over an
appeal, it lacks the authority to address the merits of the underlying agency
action).
Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.5
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS6
You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.
(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
5 The appellant has filed a motion for the Board to accept his petition for review as
timely filed. PFR File, Tab 2. The appellant’s petition was timely submitted on
August 11, 2025, the date on which it was due. PFR File, Tab 1, Tab 3 at 1; see
5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Accordingly, we have herein considered the petition, and we
dismiss the motion as moot.
6 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
4

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following
address:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
5

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, D.C. 20013
If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, N.E.
Suite 5SW12G
Washington, D.C. 20507
6

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or
2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial
review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction.7 The court of appeals must receive your
petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).
If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following
address:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
7 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
7

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
8