Shirley Muhleisen v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SHIRLEY MUHLEISEN,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2355
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DE-3443-20-0189-I-1.
______________________
Decided: July 16, 2025
______________________
SHIRLEY M UHLEISEN , Marrero, LA, pro se.
ELIZABETH W. FLETCHER , Office of the General Coun-
sel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON
JANE BOYLE, K ATHERINE M ICHELLE SMITH .
______________________
Before LOURIE, D YK , and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-2355 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

MUHLEISEN v. MSPB 2
PER C URIAM.
Shirley Muhleisen petitions for review of a final order
of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), which af-
firmed the initial decision dismissing Ms. Muhleisen’s ad-
verse action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Muhleisen
v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DE-3443-20-0189-I-1,
2024 WL 4119194 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 6, 2024) (“Final Order”);
Muhleisen v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DE-3443-20-0189-
I-1, 2021 WL 1849295 (M.S.P.B. May 7, 2021) (App’x 8–20)
(“Initial Decision”).1 For the reasons discussed below, we
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Ms. Muhleisen was employed as a registered nurse by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) from 1975 to
1999. Initial Decision at 2; App’x 49. Ms. Muhleisen was
authorized and apparently elected to receive an early re-
tirement effective September 1, 1999. Initial Decision at 2;
App’x 53. However, in August 1999, Ms. Muhleisen in-
formed Human Resources that she no longer wanted to re-
tire on the authorized date. Initial Decision at 2; App’x 53.
On September 16, 1999, Ms. Muhleisen formally rescinded
her retirement and resigned her employment about two
weeks later. Initial Decision at 2; App’x 53. Several
months after her resignation, Ms. Muhleisen began receiv-
ing retirement payments after she discovered that the VA
processed her departure as an early retirement instead of
a resignation. Initial Decision at 2; App’x 53. The monthly
amount of retirement payments Ms. Muhleisen now re-
ceives would be higher if the VA processed her departure
1 We refer to the appendix filed with the govern-
ment’s informal response brief, ECF No. 24, as “App’x”
throughout this opinion. Citations in this opinion are to
the version included in the government’s appendix. For ex-
ample, Initial Decision at 1 is found at App’x 8.
Case: 24-2355 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

MUHLEISEN v. MSPB 3
in 1999 as a resignation rather than a retirement. Initial
Decision at 2.
On March 10, 2020, Ms. Muhleisen appealed to the
Board, alleging the VA “[r]efus[ed] to honor a rescinded
early retirement request,” “refus[ed] to honor a resignation
request,” and “[p]rocess[ed] a resignation as an early retire-
ment.” App’x 52. The administrative judge ordered
Ms. Muhleisen to show cause why her involuntary retire-
ment appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
“to the extent she was employed as a title 38 registered
nurse.” App’x 35; see also App’x 32 (describing Ms. Muhlei-
sen’s appeal as “alleging a theory of involuntary retire-
ment”). In response to the order to show cause,
Ms. Muhleisen did not deny being a title 38 registered
nurse or assert another legal basis for the Board’s jurisdic-
tion. App’x 25–31.
On May 7, 2021, the administrative judge dismissed
Ms. Muhleisen’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Initial De-
cision at 1. The administrative judge reasoned that “[a]s
[Ms. Muhleisen is] a registered nurse employed by the [VA]
under title 38, the Board lacks jurisdiction over an appeal
which amounts to a challenge to an adverse action . . . .”
Initial Decision at 5. Ms. Muhleisen subsequently sought
review from the full Board, which denied her petition for
review and affirmed the administrative judge’s initial deci-
sion. Final Order at *1. The administrative judge’s initial
decision became the Board’s final decision. Id. (citing 5
C.F.R. § 1201.113(b)).
Ms. Muhleisen petitions for review in this court. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).
II. D ISCUSSION
We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) ar-
bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures
Case: 24-2355 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

MUHLEISEN v. MSPB 4
required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed;
or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c); Parrott v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 519 F.3d 1328,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Under this standard, we review de-
terminations of the Board concerning its jurisdiction de
novo.” Parrott, 519 F.3d at 1334.
On appeal, Ms. Muhleisen argues that the administra-
tive judge’s reference to title 38 law is not applicable to re-
duction-in-force apparently because this is not an adverse
action appeal. Appellant’s Br. 2; see also id. at 10–11. In
response, the government argues that Ms. Muhleisen did
not have the right to appeal her allegedly involuntary re-
tirement to the Board because her appeal is an adverse ac-
tion appeal, and she was a registered nurse appointed
under title 38. Appellee’s Br. 6–8. We agree with the gov-
ernment.
A registered nurse employed by the VA cannot appeal
an involuntary retirement to the Board in an adverse ac-
tion appeal. Involuntary retirement is typically a type of
adverse action that is appealable to the Board. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 7513(d); see also Shoaf v. Dep’t of Agric., 260 F.3d 1336,
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Section 7513, however, is applica-
ble to only an ‘employee’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 7511,
which does not apply to an individual ‘who holds a position
within the Veterans Health Administration which has
been excluded from the competitive service by or under a
provision of title 38, unless such employee was appointed
to such position under section 7401(3) of such title.’”
Biswas v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 127 F.4th 332, 344
(Fed. Cir. 2025) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(10)). A regis-
tered nurse is listed as a position under 38 U.S.C. § 7401(1)
and is thus excluded from the competitive service and is
not a position that can be appointed under 38 U.S.C.
§ 7401(3). See Khan v. United States, 201 F.3d 1375, 1380–
81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that a physician appointed un-
der 38 U.S.C. § 7401(1) was excluded from the competitive
service provision of title 38 and was therefore not entitled
Case: 24-2355 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

MUHLEISEN v. MSPB 5
to appeal an involuntary retirement to the Board). In sum,
Ms. Muhleisen was not an employee with rights to appeal
her involuntary retirement to the Board as an adverse ac-
tion.
It is undisputed that Ms. Muhleisen was employed by
the VA as a registered nurse under title 38 prior to her sep-
aration. App’x 49; Appellee’s Br. 8. Therefore, the Board
did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over
Ms. Muhleisen’s adverse action appeal.
We have no occasion to determine whether Ms. Muhlei-
sen has another path before the Office of Personnel Man-
agement or another tribunal to challenge the amount of
payment she receives.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Muhleisen’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2355 Document: 35 Page: 5 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 5 of 5 --