Lourens v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 193 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
The Board’s jurisdiction under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) does not extend to spouses and widows of members of the uniformed service.
 

Tindall v. Department of the Army, 84 M.S.P.R. 230 (1999)
The appellant’s claim that the agency did not consider the fact that he was a 5-point preference eligible in its hiring decision did not state a claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) because he was not claiming that he was denied a benefit based on his prior military service. However, for purposes of USERRA, the appellant’s service in the Army Reserve qualifies as "service in the uniformed services" (38 U.S.C. § 4303(13), (16)), and his claim of nonselection in favor of a nonreservist states a claim under USERRA.
 

Spigner v. Department of the Air Force, 86 M.S.P.R. 677 (2000)
This decision discussed the rules under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) as they apply to a veteran’s rights in connection with appointments. In its decision, the Board noted, inter alia, that under 5 C.F.R. § 333.201, "preference shall be given first to preference eligibles with compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more, and second to other preference eligibles," and that a preference eligible is not entitled to selection, but is only entitled to as much preference as he would have received in a competitive examination. No VEOA violation was found where a 5-point preference eligible was selected for a vacancy over the appellant, a 10-point eligible.
 

Fernandez v. Department of the Army, 234 F.3d 553 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
The Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 did not make the substantive provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) retroactive. The Board’s authority is limited to enforcing an employee’s rights as they existed at the time the claim accrued.
 

Brown v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 247 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
Veterans are not accorded any preference under the Veterans’ Preference Act when seeking promotions or intra-agency transfers.
 

Sheehan v. Department of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
An employee making a discrimination claim under USERRA bears the initial burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s military service was "a substantial or motivating factor" in an adverse employment action. Motivation or intent may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. If the employee meets this burden, the employer then has the opportunity to come forward with evidence to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer would have taken the adverse action anyway, for a valid reason.
 

Milner v. Department of Justice, 87 M.S.P.R. 660 (2001)
An appellant’s right to a hearing in a Board appeal qualifies as a "benefit of employment" under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Such a benefit may not be denied to a person because of military service, so a refusal to reschedule a hearing if the appellant exercised a protected right under USERRA would violate the spirit if not the letter of USERRA. This case also holds that "to effectuate the USERRA statutory scheme … a USERRA case that has been dismissed without prejudice to refiling will be considered automatically refiled by the date set forth in the dismissal order, unless there is evidence that the appellant has abandoned the case."
 

Fox v. United States Postal Service, 88 M.S.P.R. 381 (2001)
The burden of proof in USERRA cases, as clarified in Sheehan v. Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, was discussed. Rather than a Title VII burden being appropriate, "in USERRA actions there must be an initial showing by the employee that military status was at least a motivating or substantial factor in the agency action, upon which the agency must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the action would have been taken despite the protected status." Based on this holding, the Board overruled its own decisions to the extent they conflict on the burden of proof issue.
 

Eberhart v. United States Postal Service, 88 M.S.P.R. 398 (2001)
The Postal Service is a "Federal executive agency" whose actions are covered by USERRA, and Board jurisdiction under USERRA includes the denial of a request for reassignment to a position in a different location, whether the employee can show that he has a right to such a reassignment or not.
 

Augustine v. Department of Veterans Affairs & Office of Personnel Management, 88 M.S.P.R. 407 (2001)
Although this decision does not resolve the issues of the appeal, it both sets out the showing required to prove jurisdiction under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) and discusses how veterans’ preference operates in filling competitive service jobs, most specifically 5 U.S.C. §§ 3112 and 3304. The decision then requests briefs on several issues necessary to a final decision in the appeal.
 

Rogers v. Department of the Army, 88 M.S.P.R. 610 (2001)
This case examined an agency’s USERRA obligation under 5 CFR 353.209(a), which provides that an employee may not be demoted or separated while on duty with the uniformed services except for cause. Thus, if the appellant’s position is abolished during his absence, the agency must reassign him to another position of like status and pay, and because a detail is temporary, it does not fulfill the agency’s USERRA obligation. The agency must reassign him regardless of the absence of any recruitment efforts. Further, in this case, as a result of the agency’s failure to reassign the appellant, he was subject to a second RIF action, in lieu of which he retired. Under these circumstances, the Board found that he had been coerced into retirement by the agency’s violation of his USERRA rights.
 

Metzenbaum v. Department of Justice, 89 M.S.P.R. 285 (2001)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded this case to the Board for consideration of whether, pursuant to Board regulations, appellants in USERRA-based appeals may bring "mixed cases" before the Board, that is, affirmative defenses alleging discrimination on the basis of disability or any of the other types of discrimination covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1). See 240 F.3d 1068 (2001). The Board examined the language and stated statutory purpose of USERRA in deciding the issue and reaffirmed its earlier determination, first set forth in Bodus v. Department of the Air Force, 82 M.S.P.R. 508, that it lacks authority to reach such additional claims. Nor does Board authority allow for a decision on the merits of the underlying matter except to the extent necessary to address the appellant’s military status discrimination allegations, it held.
 

Ruffin v. Department of the Treasury, 89 M.S.P.R. 396 (2001)
Under the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1), (d), a preference eligible who alleges that an agency violated his rights under any statute or regulation relating to veterans’ preference, and who has exhausted his rights under that section before the Secretary of Labor, may file an appeal with the Board. This case decides the question of the extent of the Board’s authority in such an appeal. The Board held that it lacks authority in a VEOA appeal to consider the merits of the personnel action at issue and any claims of discrimination covered under 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1). Rather, its authority is limited to the claim of violation of the appellant’s veterans’ preference rights.