I A. The background facts involved in this appeal are detailed in this court's decision in Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ( Former CSA Employees), and summarized again in Menoken v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 784 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 273, 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). Briefly, the facts are as follows:

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge. This case follows in the wake of our decisions in Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health and Human Services, 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ( Former CSA Employees), and Menoken v. Department of Health and Human Services, 784 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 273, 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). In Former CSA Employees, we affirmed the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) that (1) upheld a reduction in force resulting from the abolition of the Community Services Administration and the transfer of some of that agency's functions and employees to a new agency, the Office of Community Services (new agency), and (2) remanded the case to give former employees of the Community Services Administration the opportunity to show that they had greater rights to positions in the new agency than the employees who had been transferred to those positions.

I A. The background facts are detailed in Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ( Former CSA Employees), and summarized again in Menoken v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 784 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 273, 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) and Ahlberg v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 804 F.2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Briefly, they are as follows:

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge. This case is a sequel to our decision in Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health Human Services, 762 F.2d 978 (1985) ( Former CSA Employees). There we affirmed the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) that (1) upheld a reduction in force resulting from the abolition of the Community Services Administration and the transfer of some of that agency's functions and employees to a new agency, the Office of Community Services (new agency), and (2) remanded the case to give former employees of the Community Services Administration the opportunity to show that they had greater rights to positions in the new agency than the employees who had been transferred to those positions. In the present case, the Board held in a remanded proceeding that the retention rights of the petitioner, a former Community Services Administration employee who had not been transferred to the new agency, had not been violated in the reduction in force.

The reduction in force resulted from the abolition of the Community Services Administration and the transfer of some of its functions to a new agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Community Services (new agency). The background facts relating to the abolition of the Community Services Administration and the subsequent reduction in force are detailed in Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health and Human Services, 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ( Former CSA Employees), and need not be repeated here. Briefly, the facts relating to this appeal are as follows: In notifying each of the petitioners that he would be separated effective September 30, 1981, the Community Services Administration included a notice that any appeal to the Board had to be filed within 20 days of the proposed separation.

Her appeal to this court was stayed during an appeal by 297 former CSA employees with common issues of law regarding the CSA reduction in force. In that case, Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health and Human Services, 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ( Former CSA Employees), this court affirmed the board's procedure for handling the reduction in force. Following that decision, which was adverse to petitioners, Ms. Pettis resumed her petition for individual review, claiming entitlement to some 50 temporary and permanent positions and citing the veteran's preference provisions and replacement provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 3502, 3503(a) (1982).

We review the Board's denial of class certification for abuse of discretion. Certain Former CSA Emps. v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 762 F.2d 978, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The Board "abuses its discretion when the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, [based] on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors."

Effective September 30, 1981, CSA was dissolved and its functions transferred to the newly-created OCS, in accordance with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. No. 97-35, §§ 671-83, 95 Stat. 357, 511-19. After various administrative processes and judicial interventions, the dissolution was designated a reduction-in-force to be implemented based on a Preference Order Master Listing. See, e.g., Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 762 F.2d 978, 981 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also National Council of CSA Locals v. Schweiker, 526 F. Supp. 861, 866 (D.D.C. 1981). The transferred functions were filled in accordance with assignment rights under the Master Listing. See Acerno v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 815 F.2d 680, 681 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Ahlberg v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 804 F.2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 3183, 96 L.Ed.2d 672 (1987); Pettis v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 803 F.2d 1176 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Menoken v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 784 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883, 107 S.Ct. 273, 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986).

This is an appeal from the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), 22 M.S.P.R. 21 (1984), denying review of the initial decision of the board, No. DA34438311029, December 15, 1983, which dismissed the appeal of Rex L. Carey. The appeal was instituted due to Carey's separation from federal service in 1981 when his employer agency of 14 years, the Community Services Administration (CSA), was abolished and its programs were transferred to the Department of Health Human Services (HHS) in the Office of Community Services. See generally Certain Former CSA Employees v. Department of Health Human Services, 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (discussing employee RIFs and transfer rights upon abolition of CSA). We affirm.