The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Department of Defense's decision to terminate employee Diana Z. Kammunkun, rejecting her challenge to the Merit Systems Protection Board's ruling that upheld her removal from federal employment. The court issued its decision Jan. 26, 2026, in *Kammunkun v. Department of Defense* (Fed. Cir. 2026).
The Federal Circuit, in a nonprecedential opinion written by Circuit Judge Prost, affirmed the Board's decision without finding error in the agency's removal action. Circuit Judges Wallach and Stark joined the opinion.
Kammunkun had petitioned the Federal Circuit for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board's final decision affirming the Department of Defense's decision to remove her from employment. The Board had previously upheld the agency's personnel action in case No. SF-0752-17-0667-M-2.
The case proceeded under the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction to review Merit Systems Protection Board decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). Under federal law, the court reviews Board decisions to determine whether they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court also examines whether the Board followed required procedures and whether substantial evidence supported its decision.
Federal employment law requires that agency removal decisions comply with due process requirements under the Fifth Amendment. The Merit Systems Protection Board serves as an independent agency that adjudicates federal employee appeals of adverse personnel actions, including removals, suspensions, and demotions.
Kammunkun was represented by Christopher Hugh Bonk of Gilbert Employment Law PC in Silver Spring, Maryland, along with attorneys Renn C. Fowler and Kevin Owen. The Department of Defense was represented by Antonia Ramos Soares from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department's Civil Division, along with attorneys Brian M. Boynton, Elizabeth Marie Hosford, and Patricia M. McCarthy.
The Federal Circuit's decision to designate the opinion as nonprecedential limits its value in future legal arguments. Nonprecedential decisions cannot be cited as controlling authority in subsequent cases, though they may be referenced for their persuasive value.
Federal employees facing adverse personnel actions have specific procedural rights under civil service laws. When agencies seek to remove employees, they must provide advance notice, specify charges, and allow the employee to respond. Employees can appeal removal decisions to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which conducts hearings and issues decisions that can then be appealed to federal court.
The Merit Systems Protection Board was established to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel practices while ensuring agencies can maintain an efficient workforce. The Board's jurisdiction covers most federal employees in the competitive service, though certain positions and agencies have different appeal rights.
Federal Circuit jurisdiction over Merit Systems Protection Board appeals reflects the specialized nature of federal employment law. The court regularly handles cases involving federal employee rights, agency personnel decisions, and the interpretation of civil service statutes and regulations.
The Department of Defense employs more than 700,000 civilian workers, making it one of the largest civilian employers in the federal government. The agency's personnel decisions are subject to the same civil service protections and appeal rights as other federal agencies.
Employment disputes in the federal sector often involve complex procedural requirements and multiple levels of review. Employees typically must exhaust administrative remedies through agency procedures and Merit Systems Protection Board appeals before seeking federal court review.
The Federal Circuit's affirmance of the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision means Kammunkun's removal from Department of Defense employment stands. The court found no basis to reverse the Board's determination that the agency acted properly in terminating her employment.
Federal employment law balances employee protections with agencies' need to maintain effective operations. While employees have significant procedural rights, agencies retain authority to remove workers for just cause when proper procedures are followed.
The case illustrates the multi-layered review process available to federal employees challenging adverse personnel actions. From initial agency decisions through Merit Systems Protection Board appeals to federal court review, the system provides multiple opportunities to examine the legality and appropriateness of employment decisions.
As a nonprecedential decision, the ruling will not establish binding legal precedent but reflects the Federal Circuit's continued deference to agency personnel decisions when proper procedures are followed and substantial evidence supports the action.