Cruz, 934 F.2d at 1245. Ms. Nguyen, faced with a reduction in grade, voluntarily decided to retire rather than appeal her reduction in grade. We therefore affirm the decision of the board dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. AFFIRMED. Costs No costs. 1 . Ms. Nguyen also filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint with the agency, alleging that various agency actions, including her demotion, were the result of reprisal and discrimination based on race and national origin. On May 15, 2014, the agency issued its final decision finding no discrimination. The Board did not consider her discrimination claim because it found that it laclced jurisdiction over her involuntary retirement claim. See Cruz v. Dep’t of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1245-46 (Fed.Cir.1991) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Ms. Nguyen alleges that she received Mr.
holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board holding that the courts jurisdiction is limited to the appeal of final board decisions that are adverse to the claimant holding that when presented with a mixed case of constructive removal and discrimination the board only has authority to decide the discrimination issue if the board has jurisdiction over the alleged constructive adverse action holding the issue of use can be necessary to the adjudication by the board of adjustment of the underlying request for a variance when the issue is raised in the context of an issue the board of adjustment is required to decide holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue