Christopher R. Chin-Young v. Department of the Army

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHRISTOPHER R. CHIN-YOUNG,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Respondent
______________________
2023-1588
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-11-0394-I-1.
______________________
Decided: November 9, 2023
______________________
CHRISTOPHER CHIN-Y OUNG, Tallahassee, FL, pro se.
YARIV S. P IERCE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, STEVEN J OHN G ILLINGHAM , P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY ; P ATRICK L. G ARY , Civilian Personnel Litiga-
tion Branch, Litigation Division, United States Army Legal
Services Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA.
______________________
Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2023

-- 1 of 6 --

CHIN- YOUNG v. ARMY 2
Before D YK, SCHALL , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Christopher Chin-Young (petitioner), appearing pro se,
petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board’s (MSPB or Board) final decision dismissing the case
as settled. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2011, the Department of the Army re-
moved petitioner from his position with the U.S. Army Con-
tracting Command (ACC) as a Supervisory Program
Analyst. Petitioner appealed through his then-counsel,
Robert Waldeck, to the MSPB.1 Shortly thereafter, Mr.
Waldeck withdrew as petitioner’s counsel, and petitioner
informed the counsel for the Army that he retained new
counsel. The new counsel was identified to be James Shoe-
maker. Mr. Shoemaker submitted a Designation of Repre-
sentative form, which was not signed by petitioner,
indicating that he was representing petitioner.
Mr. Shoemaker appeared before the Board and ar-
ranged a settlement agreement to resolve petitioner’s
claims. The settlement agreement was signed by Mr. Shoe-
maker and petitioner. A Board administrative judge ap-
proved the settlement and dismissed the appeal on May 19,
2011.
On September 6, 2011, petitioner filed a petition to en-
force the settlement agreement with the Board, asserting
that the Army failed to comply with the terms of the settle-
ment agreement by failing to rescind or expunge certain
entries from petitioner’s record and providing improper
1 Petitioner contends this is not correct and that Mr.
Waldeck was retained only for a different case. Whether
Robert Waldeck was retained or not makes no difference to
the outcome of this case.
Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2023

-- 2 of 6 --

CHIN- YOUNG v. ARMY 3
references to managers in other federal agencies, prevent-
ing petitioner from being hired. On November 29, 2011,
Mr. Shoemaker filed a modified settlement agreement,
signed by petitioner, Mr. Shoemaker, and representatives
for the Department of the Army, with the administrative
judge. S.A. 127–129. On November 30, 2011, the adminis-
trative judge dismissed the petition as settled. S.A. 130–
34. On February 7, 2012, Mr. Shoemaker withdrew as pe-
titioner’s counsel. S.A. 136–39.
On August 31, 2017, petitioner, pro se, filed a petition
for review of the administrative judge’s May 19, 2011, de-
cision that dismissed the case as settled. Petitioner alleged
newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit from
Mr. Shoemaker, which stated that Mr. Shoemaker was not
designated as petitioner’s representative in the case. Peti-
tioner referred to the designation of representative form
submitted to the MSPB in March of 2011, which lacked pe-
titioner’s signature. Because the designation of repre-
sentative form was not signed by petitioner, petitioner
contended that Mr. Shoemaker was not petitioner’s desig-
nated representative and was not authorized to enter into
the settlement agreement nor the modified settlement
agreement. Petitioner argues that Mr. Shoemaker “was
without any authority to access the record, submit various
documents, and negotiate a settlement at [petitioner’s] ex-
pense.” S.A. 252.
The Board denied petitioner’s petition for review and
affirmed the initial decision. S.A. 2. While the Board
acknowledged that petitioner never signed the designation
of representative form, the Board found Mr. Shoemaker’s
actions “bore the indicia of authority” because petitioner
failed to indicate otherwise and Mr. Shoemaker engaged in
activities such as “discovery, fil[ing] prehearing submis-
sions, participat[ing] in a prehearing conference, enter[ing]
into stipulations, participat[ing] in settlement negotia-
tions, and sign[ing] the settlement on [petitioner’s] behalf.”
S.A. 2–3. The Board further determined that even if Mr.
Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2023

-- 3 of 6 --

CHIN- YOUNG v. ARMY 4
Shoemaker lacked settlement authority, the settlement
agreement was still valid because petitioner signed it him-
self. S.A. 3.
Petitioner petitions for review of the Board’s decision.
We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703.
D ISCUSSION
I
Petitioner argues that Mr. Shoemaker did not have au-
thority to enter into the settlement agreement under 5
C.F.R. § 1201.31(a). We disagree.
We do not find any procedural defect under section
1201.31(a). That section provides “[a] party to an appeal
may be represented in any matter related to the appeal.
Parties may designate a representative, revoke such a des-
ignation, and change such a designation in a signed sub-
mission, submitted as a pleading.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.31(a).
Petitioner contends that this regulation requires a signed
submission in order for a designation to take effect. The
Department of the Army contends that the regulation does
not require a signed submission because it uses the word
“may” instead of “shall.”
We agree with the Board that petitioner’s failure to
sign the designation of representative form does not inval-
idate the settlement agreement or the modified settlement
agreement. Mr. Shoemaker acted with apparent authority
as petitioner’s representative, and petitioner previously
admitted that he hired Mr. Shoemaker. S.A. 241 (noting
he retained Mr. Shoemaker’s firm). Even if Mr. Shoemaker
lacked the authority to execute the settlement agreement
and the modified settlement agreement, the petitioner also
signed those documents.
The Board did not err in concluding that the settlement
agreements were not rendered ineffective because peti-
tioner did not sign the designation of representative form.
Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2023

-- 4 of 6 --

CHIN- YOUNG v. ARMY 5
II
Petitioner also challenges the validity of the settlement
agreements because the Board’s and Army’s actions “were
not in good faith for settlement and not freely entered,” and
the administrative judge allegedly pressured the petitioner
and Mr. Shoemaker to sign the agreement. Petitioner’s Br.
12.
Petitioner has challenged the enforceability of the set-
tlement agreement and modified settlement agreement on
similar grounds in other proceedings before the Board and
in federal district courts. See e.g., Chin-Young v. Dep’t of
Army, No. DC-0752-11-0394-C-1, 2013 WL 9658987, at *3–
5 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 14, 2013); Chin-Young v. McHugh, No.
RWT 13-CV-3772, 2015 WL 1522880, at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 2,
2015), aff’d sub nom. Chin-Young v. Rowell, 623 F. App’x
121 (4th Cir. 2015); Chin-Young v. United States, No. 1:16-
CV-1454, 2017 WL 2960532, at *2 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2017),
aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded, 774 F. App’x 106
(4th Cir. 2019). However, there is no indication that peti-
tioner has adequately raised these allegations of coercion,
bad faith, and other procedural issues before the adminis-
trative judge in the present case. These allegations are, at
best, made in passing and in a conclusory manner in the
petition to the Board.
The Board did not address these allegations in its deci-
sion, instead focusing solely on the issue of whether Mr.
Shoemaker had the authority to enter into the settlement
agreement. We understand the Board determined that
those allegations were not properly raised in this case.
“Our precedent clearly establishes the impropriety of seek-
ing a reversal of the [B]oard’s decision [approving a settle-
ment agreement] on the basis of assertions never presented
to the presiding official or to the [B]oard.” Sargent v. Dep’t
of Health & Human Servs., 229 F.3d 1088, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (collecting cases). Because these issues were not
Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2023

-- 5 of 6 --

CHIN- YOUNG v. ARMY 6
properly raised before the administrative judge or the
Board, we cannot address them on review. See id.
We affirm the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1588 Document: 29 Page: 6 Filed: 11/09/2023

-- 6 of 6 --