Fed. Cir.

Walker v. Department of Veterans Affairs

May 15, 2026 ·25-2066 ·Panel Decision · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Merit Systems Protection Board decision denying a petition for enforcement of a prior reinstatement order. The court found the Board's determination that the agency had complied with its obligations was supported by substantial evidence.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 3:36

Background

Daphnee Walker, proceeding pro se, was employed as a Medical Support Assistant with the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. After suffering knee injuries on duty in March 2021, she was removed from her position. She appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which reversed the removal in January 2025 and ordered the agency to restore her position, adjust benefits, provide back pay, and notify her of compliance actions. The Board attached lists of forms required for payroll processing, noting that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not use the National Finance Center but rather the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. In March 2025, Walker filed a petition for enforcement claiming the agency had not complied, specifically citing confusion over an AD-343 form. The agency responded that it had fully complied, that the AD-343 form was irrelevant to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and provided documentation of reinstatement and back pay. The Board denied the petition for enforcement in May 2025, a decision that became final in June 2025.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the Board’s decision under the standard of whether it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court found that the Board’s determination that the agency had complied with the January 2025 decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the agency’s documentation of reinstatement and back pay. The court rejected Walker’s challenge, noting her informal appeal brief was vague and failed to identify any evidence or argument demonstrating error. Specifically, the court found no error in the Board’s determination that the AD-343 form was unrelated to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

What it means going forward

The decision confirms that the Department of Veterans Affairs fulfilled its legal obligations to reinstate the employee and provide back pay, closing the enforcement dispute.

Play