We are unpersuaded by the Air Force's policy argument that it would make little sense to accord restoration rights to an at-will employee, because he would be subject to termination immediately upon restoration. Although a reemployed annuitant's at-will employment status may make the annuitant vulnerable to termination upon restoration, the statutory right to restoration nonetheless protects the reemployed annuitant from termination predicated on a compensable injury. Cf. Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding that a probationary employee — also non-tenured — can appeal a termination as a denial of restoration rights, if "his removal was the result of a compensable injury or was substantially related to a compensable injury"). We also disagree with the Air Force's argument and the MSPB's holding that the phrase "notwithstanding other statutes" in § 3323(b)(1) places a clear limitation on reemployed annuitants' rights.

However, another notable exception allows appeals by probationary employees if they have been denied restoration rights based on compensable injuries. See, e.g., Roche v. United States Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding that a probationary employee "could appeal the denial of restoration rights if he could show that his removal was the result of a compensable injury or was substantially related to a compensable injury"). The Federal Employees' Compensation Act ("FECA"), 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq., provides that federal employees who suffer on-the-job compensable injuries enjoy certain rights to be restored to their previous or comparable positions.

His sufferings do not apotheosize his probationary status into a more desirable one. Indeed, in ruling that Smith should return as a probationary employee, the arbitrator acknowledged, at least inferentially, that the employee is still on probationary status. We note that to deny a probationary employee the right to arbitration after he is dismissed during compensable leave is not to deprive him of all remedies for not being reinstated after recovering from compensable injury. If he can show that his firing resulted from a compensable injury or was substantially related to one, a probationary employee is entitled to appeal a denial of reinstatement to the MSPB. Roche v. United States Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Rishavy v. United States Postal Serv., 35 M.S.P.R. 528 (1987). Our decision does not conflict with those decisions which hold, Rishavy, 35 M.S.P.R. 528 (Nov. 19, 1987), or imply, see Roche, 828 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1987), that probationary status has no bearing on an employee's restoration rights.

"Pro se [appellants]," such as Mr. Emiabata, "are not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading." Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Pro se appellants are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (requiring that allegations contained in pro se pleadings be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), "but that liberal standard does not alleviate Mr. [Emiabata's] burden of establishing that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over his case," Bowles v. United States, 639 F. App'x 647, 648 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

The Board's jurisdiction is not plenary, but is limited to actions made appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation. Roche v. United States Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a); 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(1). When an individual appeals to the Board, he or she has the burden of proving — by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue — that the board has jurisdiction.

The majority's heavy reliance on Mr. Tiburzi's "admissions" in his pro se brief can not overcome this failure of mutuality. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) ( pro se complaints are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"); Roche v. United States Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (" Pro se petitioners are not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading."). Precedent requires the ruling that these oral MSPB proceedings did not constitute a binding mutual agreement.

See 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a) (1988); 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(1) (Supp. V 1993); Roche v. United States Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987). When an individual appeals to the board, he or she has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the board has jurisdiction.

Thus, we may not consider them here. The Board's jurisdiction is limited by statute to those actions made appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation, 5 U.S.C. § 1204, 7701(a) (1988), and the burden was on Ellison to establish that such jurisdiction existed, Roche v. United States Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Board's jurisdiction over Ellison's IRA appeal was limited by section 1221(a) to those issues raised before the OSC. Given the OSC's finding that Ellison's timely allegation of reprisal was based only on an unprotected disclosure made during the grievance process, the Board was correct in declining to consider Ellison's disclosure to the agency IG, and it properly dismissed his IRA appeal.

See 29 U.S.C. § 794a. The appellants might also have sought reinstatement before the Merit Systems Protection Board. See 39 U.S.C. § 1005(c); 5 U.S.C. § 8151; 5 C.F.R. § 353; see also Roche v. USPS, 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Finally, we note that one of the appellants won reinstatement before the National Labor Relations Board on the ground that his dismissal violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) (3).

Pro se plaintiffs are "not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading." Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the court has examined the complaint and plaintiff's briefing to discern all of plaintiff's claims and legal arguments.