BVA Case 95-454: Back

Furthermore, though not explicitly mentioned in Cruz, the standards set forth in Cruz are consistent with the Board’s own regulation that places the burden on the claimant to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

Then, at that hearing, the claimant has the burden of establishing the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

56, which requires an employee to prove the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, is entitled to deference and is therefore lawful.

On July 23, 2004, the Board determined that “the administrative judge made no 04-3442 6 error in law or regulation that affects the outcome” and denied the petition.

56, which states that “[t]he appellant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, with respect to .

if the employee proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [his or her action] was involuntary and thus tantamount to [a forced enumerated adverse action].

Garcia alleges that the administrative judge erred by requiring her to prove the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

If at the hearing the claimant establishes the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, then jurisdiction attaches to the case and the Board has the power to decide the merits of the claim.