¶1David M. Thomas, pro se.
¶2J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Donnie Hoover and Lynn Bush Ferguson, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
¶3Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Circuit Judge, and CO WEN, Senior Circuit Judge.
¶5The Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) decision dismissing Thomas’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.
¶6BACKGROUND
¶7On October 2, 1981, Thomas, an employee of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at Lewis Research Center (agency), was notified of his reassignment from his position as- Supervisory Contract Specialist (GS 13, step 4) to the position of Contract Specialist (GS 13, step 4).
¶8Thomas filed an appeal with the MSPB on October 27, 1981. During a February 8, 1982 hearing, Thomas alleged that a Reduction in Force (RIF) had occurred. To support that allegation, Thomas asserted that: the Science and Technology Branch of the Acquisition Division in which Thomas worked was abolished; the Branch was reduced to a Section; Thomas was bumped into a newly created position which did not exist before the RIF; although Thomas was told his position was abolished, another employee was bumped, downgraded and assumed a position indistinguishable from Thomas’; the Chief of the Division stated on two occasions that Thomas was involved in a RIF; the Branch Chief left the agency *49and is receiving severance pay; and that certain employees not in Thomas’ branch retired early. Because, says Thomas, a RIF occurred and RIF procedures were not followed, he was denied his rights as a preference eligible veteran.1
¶9The presiding officer: determined that Thomas was simply reassigned to a vacant position of like grade and pay (lateral transfer); cited Brunjes v. Dept. of the Army, MSPB Order No. ATO35199002 (June 2, 1980) for the proposition that when an employee is laterally transferred and no displacement is required, an agency need not follow RIF procedures; and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
¶10Thomas filed a petition for rehearing which was denied on August 26,1982. Five days later, the initial decision became final. On October 1,1982, Thomas filed a petition for judicial review of the MSPB decision.
¶11ISSUE
¶12Does the MSPB have jurisdiction to review a lateral transfer to a vacant position?
¶13OPINION
¶14The MSPB has only that jurisdiction conferred on it by Congress. “An employee ... may submit an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board from any action which is appealable to the Board under any law, rule, or regulation.” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a) (Supp. V 1981). That jurisdiction is further defined in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a) (1983).2
¶15Thomas says he was transferred from a merit pay position to a general schedule position, that he was moved from a retention register with at least three non-veterans to a register with only one person who had greater tenure than himself, and that he was therefore more vulnerable in the event of a future RIF. However, assuming the truth of those allegations, they result from a lateral transfer and not from a type of agency action, e.g., removal, reduction-in-grade, etc., within the jurisdiction of the MSPB as specified in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a), note 2, supra. See Grasso v. Internal Revenue Service, 657 F.2d 224 (8th Cir.1981); Lund v. Dept. of State, MSPB Docket No. DC075299001 (Feb. 6, 1980).
¶16Thomas correctly says the MSPB has jurisdiction to consider the failure of an agency to follow RIF procedures when a RIF has occurred, citing the agency’s failure here to consider his preference eligibili*50ty in determining his retention standing. Thomas relies on 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (1983)3 as providing the necessary authority for the MSPB to review his case under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(8), note 2, supra.
¶17An agency must comply with the RIF procedures whenever an employee is released “by separation, demotion, furlough for more than 30 days, or reassignment requiring displacement.” 5 C.F.R. § 351.-201(a) (1983) (emphasis added).4 Because he was reassigned to a vacant position and no displacement was required, Thomas simply does not qualify as a released employee, see Brunjes, supra; Hayes v. NASA, MSPB Docket No. AT035199055 (July 23, 1980), and none of the RIF procedures applies, including 5 C.F.R. § 351.901. The MSPB has no jurisdiction to review a failure to follow non-applicable RIF procedures.
¶18No statute, rule, or regulation has been cited, and we are aware of none, that would provide MSPB with jurisdiction to review Thomas’ lateral transfer to a vacant position. Accordingly, the decision of the MSPB is affirmed.