Herschell L. Harris, Petitioner, v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Respondent, 108 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 108 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1997) March 12, 1997

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


Herschell Harris petitions for review of the May 16, 1996 decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Docket No. DC0752960606-I-1, dismissing his appeal as untimely filed. The full Board denied review on October 2, 1996. We affirm the decision of the Board.

On February 10, 1995 Mr. Harris was removed from his position as a computer assistant with the Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, Virginia, for being absent without leave. In the notice removing him from employment, he was advised that the deadline for filing an appeal to the Board was thirty days from the effective date of his removal. He filed his appeal on April 1, 1996, more than a year late.

When ordered to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for untimeliness, Mr. Harris responded that no one in management would discuss his removal with him or assist him, that he was incapacitated by an injury suffered on the job and under stress from the consequences of the removal, and that past difficulties with the agency and its refusal to grant him advanced sick leave "led to my leaving and not being able to process this correctly." He included reports from a physical therapist and a clinical psychologist regarding a lumbar strain, back pain, and associated stress in his petition to the full Board. The Board found his proffered reasons did not justify a delay of over a year in filing his appeal and granted the agency's motion to dismiss.

The waiver of the time limit for filing an appeal is a matter committed to the Board's discretion and this court will not disturb the Board's refusal to grant such a waiver unless it is arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Phillips v. United States Postal Service, 695 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)). There is no such infirmity in the Board's exercise of its discretion in this case.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.