7511(a) may appeal to the board. Section 7511(b), however, specifically excludes those employees “(2) whose positions] ha[ve] been determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character by—... (C) the President or the head of an agency for a position excepted from the competitive service by statute.” Here, it is undisputed that Attorney General Reno’s Order in 1996 determined that the position of Trustee was of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character.” This designation of the Trustee position is unreviewable by the courts because it is an “inherently discretionary judgment call” committed to the Attorney General. Cf. Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527, 108 S.Ct. 818, 98 L.Ed.2d 918 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we must only determine whether United
holding that the denial of security clearance is unreviewable by this court in part because it is an inherently discretionary decision holding that decision of this court unless or until overturned by this court en banc the  federal circuit or the supreme court is a decision of the court on the date it is issued any rulings interpretations or conclusions of law contained in such a decision are authoritative and binding as of the date the decision is issued and are to be considered and when applicable are to be followed by va agencies of original jurisdiction the board and the secretary in adjudicating and resolving claims holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision holding that the concerns cited by the district courts supra justify discretionary denial of pendent jurisdiction but not deciding whether such denial is mandated by congress holding that it is not