Case: 23-1010 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ERIC WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Respondent
______________________
2023-1010
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-3330-16-0292-B-1.
______________________
Decided: May 11, 2023
______________________
ERIC WILLIAMS, North Charleston, SC, pro se.
ELIZABETH MARIE PULLIN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, PATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 23-1010 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2023
2 WILLIAMS v. NAVY
PER CURIAM.
Eric Williams appeals from the final decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his re-
quest for corrective action under the Veterans Employment
Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). For the following rea-
sons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Williams, a preference-eligible veteran, applied for
a contract specialist position with the Department of the
Navy (the Navy). The Navy advertised this position ac-
cording to its referral certificates process in which hiring
managers request a referral certificate that includes candi-
dates who have applied on USAJOBS and are rated as
“best qualified.” Because he was not rated “best qualified”
based on the information he submitted in his application,
S. Appx. 179–80, Mr. Williams was not included on either
of the referral certificates sent to the hiring manager. S.
Appx. 35. Unsatisfied with the referred candidates, the
hiring manager opted to close the contract specialist posi-
tion vacancy announcement, S. Appx 35, and instead filled
the position pursuant to the Expedited Hiring Authority
(EHA) program. S. Appx. 35; see 5 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(3); see
also 10 U.S.C. § 1705(f). Specifically, she opted to fill the
position through the EHA’s “name request” method in
which the Navy expedites hiring through targeted recruit-
ment efforts.
After the Navy did not hire Mr. Williams for the posi-
tion, he filed a complaint alleging the Navy violated his vet-
erans’ preference rights. The administrative judge
dismissed Mr. Williams’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
On Mr. Williams’ petition for review, the Board vacated the
dismissal and remanded for further consideration. On re-
mand, the administrative judge determined the Navy did
not violate Mr. Williams’ preference rights. Specifically,
the administrative judge rejected Mr. Williams’ arguments
that the Navy inadequately credited his experience and
Case: 23-1010 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2023
WILLIAMS v. NAVY 3
improperly filled the contract specialist position using the
EHA program in violation of his right to compete under 5
U.S.C. § 3304 and the “pass-over procedures” in 5 U.S.C.
§ 3318. S. Appx. 203–21. The administrative judge also
found harmless the Navy’s failure to follow its EHA inter-
nal implementation guidance requiring it to list its use of
EHA procedures in the job vacancy announcement. S.
Appx. 216–21. The Board affirmed. S. Appx. 245–55. Mr.
Williams appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
DISCUSSION
We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is (1) ar-
bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with the law; (2) obtained without proce-
dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol-
lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c). We review the Board’s statutory interpretations
de novo. Augustine v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 503 F.3d
1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Mr. Williams argues the Navy
violated several of his veterans’ preference rights when it
filled the contract specialist position pursuant to EHA pro-
cedures, including his right to compete and his pass-over
procedural rights. Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. at 8,
11–12. He also argues the Navy violated the notice re-
quirements of its EHA implementation guidance. Id. at 5.
We do not agree.
Under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1), a preference-eligible vet-
eran “may not be denied the opportunity to compete for va-
cant positions.” The Navy did not deny Mr. Williams the
right to compete for the contract specialist position. He had
the opportunity to apply for the position, and the Navy con-
sidered his application. The Navy simply elected not to for-
ward Mr. Williams’ application to the hiring manager
because he was not among the “best qualified” candidates
as compared to other preference-eligible veterans. Veter-
ans’ preference rights do not confer entitlement to a
Case: 23-1010 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 05/11/2023
4 WILLIAMS v. NAVY
position, only the right to compete. See 5 U.S.C. §
3304(f)(3) (providing that § 3304(f) does not “confer an en-
titlement to veterans’ preference that is not otherwise re-
quired by law”), § 3304(f)(2) (noting that “if selected, a
preference eligible . . . shall receive a career or career-con-
ditional appointment” (emphasis added)).
Nor did the Navy violate Mr. Williams’ rights by clos-
ing the position and filling it under its EHA procedures.
Section 3304(a)(3) permits the Navy to cancel a vacancy
listing and fill the position without regard to veterans’ pref-
erence rights. 5 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(3); see 10 U.S.C. § 1705(f)
(establishing EHA); see also Abell v. Dep’t of Navy, 343 F.3d
1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding veterans’ preference
rights do not require agency to hire from certificate and fill
vacancies). The Navy, therefore, did not violate Mr. Wil-
liams’ rights by closing the listing without hiring him and
then hiring someone else pursuant to EHA procedures.
Moreover, because § 3304(a)(3) permits filling vacancies
pursuant to EHA procedures without regard to veterans’
preference rights, the Navy did not violate Mr. Williams’
pass-over rights. See 5 U.S.C. § 3318.
Finally, Mr. Williams argues the Navy violated its in-
ternal notice requirements for hiring under the EHA by not
indicating in the job vacancy listing that the Navy may fill
the position using EHA procedures. Appellant’s Informal
Opening Br. at 5–6; see S. Appx. 48–49. As the Board
stated, even though there were deficiencies in the Navy’s
listing, that error was harmless because it did not affect
Mr. Williams’ ability to compete for the position. See S.
Appx. 252–53. He does not challenge that finding on ap-
peal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Williams’ other arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given, we af-
firm the Board’s denial of Mr. Williams’ request for correc-
tive action under the VEOA.
Case: 23-1010 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 05/11/2023
WILLIAMS v. NAVY 5
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.