NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3197
MARTIN F. SALAZAR,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
Martin F. Salazar, of Harlem, Georgia, pro se.
Jeffrey A. Gauger, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems
Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were B.
Chad Bungard, General Counsel, and Stephanie M. Conley, Acting Assistant General
Counsel.
Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3197
MARTIN F. SALAZAR,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT3443070964-I-1.
__________________________
DECIDED: August 7, 2008
__________________________
Before MAYER, LINN and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Martin F. Salazar appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection
Board that dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Salazar v. Dep’t of Energy, AT-
3443-07-0964-I-1 (MSPB Mar. 6, 2008). We affirm.
Salazar retired from the Department of Energy (“agency”) on August 26, 2005.
In February 2006, he was indicted by a federal grand jury and convicted of two charges:
1) submitting a questionnaire for a national security position in which he falsely
represented that he was born in the United States, and 2) submitting an application for
retirement in which he falsely stated that he was born in 1954 when he knew he was
born in 1958. Based on Salazar’s criminal conviction, the agency debarred him from
the award of any federal government contracts, subcontracts or assistance agreements
for a period of three years.
Salazar appealed to the board, challenging his debarment and alleging
discrimination under Title VII. The administrative judge dismissed his appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, and the full board denied Salazar’s petition for review. Salazar then timely
appealed to this court.
Whether the board has jurisdiction over an appeal is a question of law that we
review de novo. Johnston v. Merit Sys. Protec. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The board's jurisdiction is not plenary, but is limited to those matters over which it has
been granted jurisdiction by law, rule or regulation. Id. Because no law, rule or
regulation gives the board jurisdiction over the debarment of a contractor, it properly
dismissed Salazar’s debarment challenge. See IMCO, Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d
1422, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that challenges to a debarment must be brought in
district court).
The board likewise correctly dismissed Salazar’s allegations of discrimination
based on race, national origin and age. Unless the board otherwise has jurisdiction
over an appeal, it does not have authority to review allegations of discrimination. See
Cruz v. Dep’t of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (en banc).
Salazar argues that the board should not have considered the agency’s motion to
dismiss because he did not receive a copy of this motion until after the filing deadline.
The agency’s motion was timely filed with the board within the 20 days specified in the
administrative judge’s September 5, 2005 order. Although Salazar did not receive a
copy of this motion until a few days after it was due at the board, he has not established
2008-3197 2
that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay. Salazar filed a timely response
to the agency’s motion to dismiss and this response was fully considered by the board.
We have considered Salazar’s remaining arguments, but find them
unpersuasive.
2008-3197 3