The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a petition filed by Chima Akagbue Nwala challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board's denial of his request for corrective action against the Department of the Air Force. The court issued its nonprecedential decision on Feb. 3, 2026, in *Nwala v. Department of the Air Force*.
Nwala, who represented himself pro se from Riverview, Florida, worked as a program analyst for the Air Force when he applied for a supervisory financial management analyst position within the agency. The Air Force selected another applicant for the position, prompting Nwala to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board seeking corrective action.
In his appeal, Nwala alleged that the Air Force improperly used direct hiring authority in the selection process, resulting in a decision not to select him in violation of his veterans preference rights under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. The VEOA provides certain hiring preferences and protections for veterans in federal employment.
The administrative judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board denied Nwala's request for corrective action. According to the Federal Circuit's opinion, the administrative judge noted that the agency "explicitly stated [direct hiring authority] as the hiring authority" in the selection process.
The Merit Systems Protection Board adopted the administrative judge's initial decision as its final decision on Apr. 8, 2025. The initial decision was issued on June 10, 2024, in case number AT-3330-24-0398-I-1.
Nwala then petitioned the Federal Circuit for review of the Board's final decision. The case was assigned number 2025-1857 before the appeals court.
The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Alan D. Lourie, Sharon Prost, and Raymond T. Taranto. The court issued a per curiam decision, meaning it was issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by a specific judge.
The Department of Justice represented the Air Force in the proceedings. The government's legal team included Daniel Hoffman from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division, along with attorneys Reginald Thomas Blades Jr., Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brett Shumate.
The Federal Circuit's decision was marked as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. Nonprecedential decisions are typically issued when the court determines that the case does not establish new legal principles or when the outcome is straightforward based on existing law.
Direct hiring authority is a federal hiring mechanism that allows agencies to fill positions more quickly by bypassing certain competitive hiring procedures. The authority is typically used for positions that are difficult to fill or in occupations facing critical hiring needs. However, the use of direct hiring authority must still comply with veterans preference requirements under federal law.
The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act provides various protections and preferences for veterans in federal employment. Under the law, eligible veterans receive preference points in the hiring process, and agencies must follow specific procedures when considering veteran applicants for positions.
Veterans preference cases often involve complex questions about whether agencies properly applied hiring authorities while still respecting veterans' statutory rights. The Merit Systems Protection Board serves as the primary forum for adjudicating such disputes between federal employees and their agencies.
The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, particularly those involving personnel actions and employment disputes within the federal government. The court's specialized jurisdiction includes cases arising under various federal employment statutes.
Pro se litigation, where individuals represent themselves without attorneys, is common in federal employment cases. While the legal system allows self-representation, employment law cases often involve complex procedural requirements and statutory frameworks that can be challenging for non-lawyers to navigate.
The dismissal of Nwala's petition means the Merit Systems Protection Board's denial of corrective action stands as the final decision in the case. The Federal Circuit did not elaborate on its reasoning in the brief per curiam opinion, simply stating that it dismissed the petition "for the reasons below" without providing detailed analysis.
This case reflects ongoing issues in federal employment regarding the balance between agencies' need for hiring flexibility through mechanisms like direct hiring authority and the statutory protections afforded to veterans in the federal workplace. Veterans advocacy groups continue to monitor how agencies implement hiring authorities to ensure compliance with preference requirements.
The timing of the case, with the initial Merit Systems Protection Board decision in 2024 and the Federal Circuit's dismissal in early 2026, demonstrates the length of time employment disputes can take to resolve through the federal administrative and judicial process.