The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided a case on January 22, 2026, involving a physician-veteran's challenge to his non-selection for a senior Veterans Health Administration position, raising important questions about veterans' preference rights in federal employment.
In *Conklin v. Merit Systems Protection Board* (Fed. Cir. 2026), Dr. Jeremy Conklin, a physician and preference-eligible veteran from Seattle, petitioned the Federal Circuit to review a Merit Systems Protection Board decision regarding his unsuccessful application to become Chief of Staff of a VHA regional system. The position was open only to physicians, making it a highly specialized senior leadership role within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Dr. Conklin, representing himself pro se, alleged that the Department of Veterans Affairs violated his veterans' preference rights during the evaluation process for the Chief of Staff position. Veterans' preference provides eligible veterans with certain advantages in federal hiring, designed to recognize their military service and facilitate their transition to civilian federal employment.
The case proceeded through multiple administrative levels before reaching the Federal Circuit. Dr. Conklin first sought relief from the Department of Labor after his non-selection, but was unsuccessful. He then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a) and (d).
The VEOA provides a mechanism for preference-eligible veterans to challenge personnel actions in federal agencies when they believe their veterans' preference rights have been violated. This statute was enacted to strengthen protections for veterans in federal employment and provide clear avenues for redress when violations occur.
The Merit Systems Protection Board, however, dismissed Dr. Conklin's case. In reaching this decision, the Board relied on the Federal Circuit's precedent in *Scarnati v. Department of Veterans Affairs*, 344 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The *Scarnati* decision appears to have established important limitations on veterans' preference claims, though the complete reasoning in the current case was not fully detailed in the available portion of the opinion.
The Federal Circuit panel hearing the case consisted of Circuit Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Chen, who issued a per curiam opinion. Per curiam opinions typically indicate that the court's decision represents a consensus view of the panel without attribution to any individual judge.
Representing the Merit Systems Protection Board were attorneys Constance E. Travanty and Katherine Michelle Smith from the Board's Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. The Department of Veterans Affairs intervened in the case as a party, represented by a team from the Department of Justice's Commercial Litigation Branch, including Alexander Brewer, Albert S. Iarossi, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brett Shumate.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in federal employment law regarding the scope and application of veterans' preference rights. While these preferences are designed to give veterans meaningful advantages in federal hiring, questions often arise about how they apply to specialized positions requiring specific professional qualifications, such as physician roles in the VA system.
The VHA Chief of Staff position represents a senior leadership role within the Veterans Health Administration, which operates one of the largest healthcare systems in the United States. Such positions typically require both medical expertise and significant administrative experience, creating complex questions about how veterans' preference interacts with professional qualification requirements.
The timing of this decision is particularly relevant given ongoing discussions about veteran employment in federal agencies and the effectiveness of existing legal protections. The Federal Circuit's role in reviewing these cases is crucial, as it has exclusive jurisdiction over certain federal employment disputes and its decisions create binding precedent for similar cases.
The case also demonstrates the multi-layered administrative process that federal employees and applicants must navigate when challenging personnel decisions. Dr. Conklin's journey from initial non-selection through Department of Labor review, Merit Systems Protection Board proceedings, and ultimately to the Federal Circuit illustrates the complexity of federal employment dispute resolution.
The decision comes at a time when federal agencies face ongoing challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly in specialized fields like healthcare. The outcome of cases like *Conklin* can influence how agencies structure their hiring processes and balance various statutory requirements.
While the complete reasoning and outcome of the Federal Circuit's review are not detailed in the available portion of the opinion, the case represents an important test of how courts interpret and apply veterans' preference laws in the context of highly specialized federal positions. The decision will likely be closely watched by veterans' advocacy groups, federal employment attorneys, and human resources professionals throughout the federal government.
The case also underscores the importance of the Merit Systems Protection Board as an independent agency responsible for protecting federal employees' rights and ensuring merit-based personnel practices in federal agencies. The Board's decisions in veterans' preference cases often become the subject of Federal Circuit review, creating an important body of law governing veteran employment rights.