In Clark v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 57 M.S.P.R. 43 (1993) ("AAFES"), the appellant was employed by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in an non-appropriated fund ("NAF") position. He filed an appeal before the Board asserting that various adverse personnel actions had been taken against him in retaliation for disclosures of fraud, waste, and abuse. Id. at 44. As the Board noted in its opinion in AAFES, the Board's jurisdiction is not plenary, but rather is limited to that granted by law, rule, or regulation. Id. An employee may appeal certain enumerated adverse personnel actions to the Board under authority granted by 5 U.S.C. 7513(d). In section 2105(c), Title 5, the provision defining "employee" for purposes of that title, states that "an employee paid from nonappropriated funds ... is deemed not an employee for the purpose of ... laws administered by the Office of Personnel Management." 5 U.S.C. 2105(c) (2000). The Board noted in AAFES that adverse action provisions of Title 5 are laws administered by the Office of Personnel Management for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 2105(c), and thus 5 U.S.C. 7513(d) does not provide NAF employees with a right to appeal an adverse personnel action to the Board. AAFES, 57 M.S.P.R. at 45. In AAFES, the appellant conceded that the Whistleblower Protection Act did not provide the Board with jurisdiction over his appeal, but argued that the Board had jurisdiction because he is an employee, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 2105(c) for purposes of laws not administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Id. The appellant argued that because the Office of Personnel Management did not administer the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8), he was an employee under 5 U.S.C. 2302 for purposes of alleging a violation of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) and had a right to file an individual right of action appeal with the Board. AAFES, 57 M.S.P.R. at 45. The appellant in AAFES also argued that the Office of Special Counsel always had the right to bring a complaint seeking correction for a Whistleblower Protection Act violation on behalf of an NAF employee and that the Act therefore enabled the affected NAF employee to bring the complaint to the Board as an individual right of action appeal.