AThe Board's determination that it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. Lee v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 857 F.3d 874, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We review the findings of fact underlying the Board's jurisdictional decision for substantial evidence.

"The [MSPB]'s determination that it lacks jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo." Lee v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 857 F.3d 874, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). "When the [MSPB] has made factual findings affecting the jurisdictional inquiry, these findings are reviewed for support by substantial evidence in the record."

Second, relying on these regulations, courts have held that an agency's decision not to convert an FCIP appointee to a permanent position does not qualify as an adverse employment action. See Lee v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 857 F.3d 874, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that an "agency's decision not to convert an FCIP intern to competitive service is not an 'adverse action'... because the implementing regulations clearly explain that interns have no right to further federal employment after their appointments expire"); Rocha v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 688 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that because plaintiff had no "right to further federal employment when his FCIP appointment ended... the State Department's decision not to convert his appointment to a competitive service position was not an 'adverse action'"); Scull v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 113 M.S.P.R. 287, 291 (2010) (explaining that "an FCIP intern's termination upon the expiration of his appointment is generally not an adverse action because it merely carries out the terms of the appointment"). Significantly, Valentine has not cited a single case disagreeing with these cases.