The FAA is generally exempted from the Title 5 Personnel Management System, yet FAA employees MSPB Appeal rights are retained. FAA's employment policy of an Air Traffic Control Specialist - In Training (ATCSTT) whose training was terminated by their Air Traffic Manager (ATM) due to unacceptable performance requires the employee be immediately placed on administrative duties. Through a subsequent process — a national group of FAA officials decide if the employee will be retained as an ATCSTT at a different FAA facility with a lower grade and pay, or initiate separation from Federal Service. If the national group of FAA officials decide to retain the ATCSTT at a lower grade/pay position, the ATCSTT is given a list of 5 or less different facilities to choose from. If the ATCSTT does not choose a facility in the list given to the ATCSTT — per FAA employment policies FAA HRPM 1.14a — the FAA will initiate separation from Federal Service.

1. Is a final decision to terminate the training of a FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist — In Training employee by FAA management — a reduction in grade or removal action based on unacceptable performance, or a major adverse personnel action that is appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
If no: in the case the ATCSTT is not retained by the FAA's national group of officials or fails to select a lower/grade pay facility — during the separation from Federal Service procedures can the ATCS-IT re-challenge the final decision to terminate their training as an ATCS-IT

2. Does subjecting a non-probationary Federal employee to the effects of a proposed action — before the employee responds — violate due process by failing to allow a meaningful opportunity to respond to the action as held in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985)?

3. If an appellant/plaintiff of a MSPB mixed case fails to allege a Title VII discrimination claim in a district court complaint — is the appropriate venue for judicial review the Federal Circuit, or the district court?

4. The district court's initial complaint lacked a specific Title VII discrimination claim, yet the complaint was listed as 'filed under' the Title VII in the opening statement as required under 5 U.S.C § 7703 (b) (2). Should the district court have liberally construed the pro se plaintiffs intent was to include a Title VII discrimination count?

Is a final decision to terminate the training of a FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist — In Training employee by FAA management a reduction in grade or removal action based on unacceptable performance, or a major adverse personnel action that is appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board?