PAUL G. MADSEN, PETITIONER,

v.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENT

Madsen asserts that (1) the employee who bumped him during tbe RIF wag ag. signed to a position improperly classified at the Grade n level; (2) the employee who bumped him wag n(jt ag qualified as Mad_ sen since the bumping employee possessed ordy the minimum qualifications for the position; and (3) the agency should not have resorted to RIF procedures but, rather, should have restructured its work force.

With respect to Madsen’s first contention, the Board correctly determined that the question of the classification of the position held by the displacing employee was n°t within its jurisdiction. The Board possesses limited jurisdiction over appeals instituted by federal employees under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a) and can only hear appeals instituted by employees who are specifically granted appeal rights thereunder. E.g., Cowan v. United States, 710 F. 2d 803 (Fed.Cir.1983). We find no statute or regulation which empowers the Board to review (within the context of an adverse action appeal) the merits of an agency’s prior decision concerning the classification of the bumping employee’s position or his qualifications for that position. Cf. Brace v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 11 MSPB 451, (1982), aff'd, No. 83-580 (Fed.Cir. June 3, 1983) (unreported). Accordingly, the Board correctly refused to address this issue.

Madsen’s second contention, that he was more qualified than the displacing employee to perform the duties assigned to a Field Supervisor, was considered, and properly rejected, by the Board. Madsen does not contend that the bumping employee was unqualified for the position, only that Madsen was better qualified. An employee is qualified for assignment under 5 C.F.R. § 351.701 if the employee “meets the OPM standards and requirements for the position.” 5 C.F.R. § 351.702(a) (1983).

Finally, Madsen’s assertion that the agency should have avoided a RIF was also correctly rejected by the Board. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 351.201(b) (1983), an agency is not required, in conducting RIFs, to fill vacant positions. In addition, an agency, in deciding how to structure the workplace, is given wide discretion in determining which individuals are best qualified to perform particular functions. Wilmot v. United States, 205 Ct.Cl. 666 (1974).

CONCLUSION

“An agency is accorded wide discretion in conducting a reduction in force; absent a clear abuse of that discretion, a substantial departure from applicable procedures, a misconstruction of governing statutes, or the like, we do not upset a final agency decision.” Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 723 F. 2d 1560, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1983) (quoting Dancy v. United States, 668 F. 2d 1224,1226, 229 Ct.Cl. 300 (1982)). Under this limited scope of judicial review, we have no basis for overturning the agency’s action in demoting Madsen pursuant to the RIF. AFFIRMED.