Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
William Brandenburg, Jr., Petitioner, v. Department of the Air Force, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. - 895 F.2d 1421
Jan. 19, 1990
Before RICH and MAYER, Circuit Judges, and PETER BEER, Judge.*
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
William Brandenburg, Jr., appeals the July 18, 1989, decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), docket number DA315H8910141, denying his Petition for Review of the Administrative Judge's (AJ's) initial decision of March 7, 1989, which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Brandenburg's claim is based on the 1981 decision of the Department of the Air Force (Air Force) terminating him from his then 2 1/2 month old job as a probationary machinist because of unsatisfactory performance. We affirm.
OPINION
The removal which Brandenburg challenges is the same removal which he challenged in this court in 1985. See Brandenburg v. Department of the Air Force, 24 M.S.P.R. 110 (1984), aff'd 785 F.2d 321 (Fed.Cir.1985) (table). This court held then that as a probationary employee Brandenburg had a right of appeal to the MSPB only if his dismissal was based on marital status or partisan political reasons, or involved improper agency procedures. We affirmed the MSPB's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Brandenburg's conclusory statement that he was dismissed for partisan political reasons was not supported by his factual allegations, holding that the MSPB "did not have the power to hear the case."
After that unsuccessful attempt to obtain review in the MSPB, Brandenburg pursued his efforts in the Federal courts in Texas but was unsuccessful there as well. He then refiled his case with the MSPB, making the new contention that his dismissal involved "improper agency procedures," which he could have made, but did not, in his first appeal to the MSPB. The AJ again dismissed Brandenburg's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the issue of jurisdiction was res judicata, that appellant was still pursuing the same claim that had been decided. The AJ noted that Brandenburg "had the opportunity to raise the issue of the agency's alleged failure to meet the procedural requirements ... when he initially brought his appeal to the Board."
We agree with the MSPB that appellant has not shown any reason why the principles of res judicata do not bar this renewed attempt to relitigate exactly the same claim which we turned down four years ago.