To be entitled to relief under the VEOA, an appellant must prove by preponderant evidence that the agency's actions violated one or more of the appellant's statutory or regulatory veterans' preference rights in a selection process. See Johnson v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 276 F. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (nonprecedential) (citing Isabella v. Dep't of State, 106 M.S.P.R. 333, 345 (2007)). We find no error in the Board's holding here because, as explained by both the AJ and the Board, the agency did not violate Mr. Donaldson's veterans' preference rights by announcing the position using both processes simultaneously, and then selecting Mr. Henderson under the merit promotion process.

See Ayres v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 280 Fed. Appx. 991, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that discovery and evidentiary rulings "fall within the discretion of the Board and its officials, and will not be overturned absent a clear and harmful abuse of discretion"). While plaintiff proffers that he wanted to question Ms. Hopkins regarding certain statements in her declaration, see generally Hopkins Decl., as well as her "comments to Scott during the [October 17th] meeting that he was angry and should calm down," Pl.'s Supp. Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 10-11, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how his inability to elicit testimony on those issues imposed substantial harm or prejudice. See Johnson v. SSA, 276 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[Appellant's] conclusory allegations in his brief detailing various allegedly improper decisions of the AJ regarding the scope of discovery fall far short of demonstrating an abuse of discretion."); Williams v. McCausland, No. 90-7563, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13341, at *56-67 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 1995) (rejecting the claim that the ALJ abused her discretion by refusing to compel certain responses requested by the plaintiff and allowing the plaintiff to subpoena adverse witnesses where the plaintiff "fail[ed] to identify any information that he was unable to obtain that would have affected the outcome of the proceedings").