Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03111/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03111-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raphael R. Adam
Petitioner
Department of the Army
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RAPHAEL R. ADAM,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3111

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-1221-12-0695-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: August 30, 2016

______________________ 

 DANIELLE BESS OBIORAH, Obiorah Fields, LLC, Jonesboro, GA, for petitioner. 

 MELISSA M. DEVINE, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

ELIZABETH ANNE SPECK, BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., CLAUDIA BURKE. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3111 Document: 43-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/30/2016
2 ADAM v. ARMY

PER CURIAM. 

This appeal is from an MSPB decision in an Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal taken by Raphael R. 

Adam.1 The MSPB determined that Mr. Adam failed to 

show that any protected disclosure was a contributing 

factor to the non-selection action from which he appeals. 

We affirm the MSPB’s decision.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Adam was employed as one of fifteen instructors 

in the Iraqi Language Department of the Defense Language Institute. In April 2011 this Department was 

closed and replaced with three Arabic Language groups, 

with positions for twelve instructors. Mr. Adam applied, 

but he was not selected for any of these twelve positions. 

His employment ended at the conclusion of his then notto-exceed period of appointment.

When Mr. Adam was first employed in April 2004, he 

received an excepted appointment with no tenure and a 

not-to-exceed date of April 3, 2005. He received a series of 

extensions, and his tenure status was changed to indefinite. His last extension occurred on April 25, 2011, with a 

not-to-exceed date of September 30, 2011. Mr. Adam was 

notified in June 2011 that he had not been selected for 

any of the Arabic Language positions, and that his employment would end on September 30, 2011. At his 

request, the separation was changed to a voluntary retirement.

On September 6, 2011 Mr. Adam filed an equal employment opportunity complaint, stating that his non1 Adam v. Dep’t of Army, No. SF-1221-12-0695-B-1 

(MSPB Feb. 5, 2015) (“Final Order”).

 

Case: 15-3111 Document: 43-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/30/2016
ADAM v. ARMY 3

selection was the result of discrimination on the basis of 

national origin. The agency dismissed this complaint as 

untimely filed. On March 15, 2012 Mr. Adam filed a 

whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, stating that his non-selection was in retaliation for 

protected disclosures that he had made in 2009 and 2010 

to a Dean of the Language Institute. Mr. Adam stated 

that (1) in August 2009 he reported several examples of 

misuse of government resources and violation of travel 

policies and fraud by some language instructors on travel

duty, and (2) in April 2010 he was one of a group of eight 

instructors who reported favoritism, nepotism, bribery, 

and inappropriate comments by their supervisor at the 

Institute. The Special Counsel dismissed the complaint 

on June 19, 2012, and advised Mr. Adam of his right to 

file an IRA appeal to the MSPB.

Mr. Adam appealed to the MSPB, and the full Board

found (reversing the administrative judge) that Mr. Adam 

made a nonfrivolous allegation that the 2009 group of 

disclosures constituted protected whistleblowing. The 

MSPB also concluded that Mr. Adam had not made a 

nonfrivolous allegation that the 2010 disclosures were 

protected whistleblowing, because he had not alleged facts 

to show, as the statute requires, a violation of any law, 

rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross 

waste of funds, or a substantial and specific danger to 

public health. The Board remanded to the administrative 

judge, and Mr. Adam withdrew his request for a hearing. 

The administrative judge then found, on the record 

and argument, that Mr. Adam had not proved by a preponderance of evidence that the selection panel had 

actual or constructive knowledge of the 2009 disclosures. 

The full Board affirmed, stating that Mr. Adam had not 

identified “what documents, if any, may have been included in his OPF [official personnel file] that would have 

indicated his whistleblowing activity” to the selection 

panel. Final Order at 5–6. The MSPB referred to “the 

Case: 15-3111 Document: 43-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/30/2016
4 ADAM v. ARMY

sworn statement of one of the selection panel members 

that the selection panel was not aware of the appellant’s 

whistleblowing activity,” and the sworn statement of the 

Dean of the Institute, to whom the 2009 disclosures were 

made, that he had not discussed Mr. Adam’s whistleblowing with the selection committee. Id. at 6. The MSPB 

concluded that Mr. Adam had not met his burden of 

establishing that whistleblowing reprisal was a contributing factor in his non-selection. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

The Whistleblower Protection Act protects government employees from retaliation for disclosures that “an 

employee . . . reasonably believes evidences (i) a violation 

of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a 

substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). The requisite reasonable belief

exists when “a disinterested observer with knowledge of 

the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable by 

the employee [could] reasonably conclude that the actions 

of the government evidence” such wrongdoing. LaChance 

v. White, 174 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

We must affirm the decision of the MSPB unless it is 

“(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without 

procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having 

been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We review de novo whether 

the MSPB has jurisdiction over an appeal. Johnston v. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008).

Mr. Adam argues that he presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that his 2009 disclosures were a contributing factor to his non-selection, and 

that he presented nonfrivolous allegations that the 2010 

Case: 15-3111 Document: 43-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/30/2016
ADAM v. ARMY 5

disclosures were protected. We address these issues in 

turn.

A 

The whistleblower statute places the burden on the 

employee to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

that a protected disclosure was a “contributing factor” to 

the personnel action. 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e) provides: 

(e)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2), 

in any case involving an alleged prohibited personnel practice as described under section 

2302(b)(8) or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or 

(D), the Board shall order such corrective action 

as the Board considers appropriate if the employee, former employee, or applicant for employment 

has demonstrated that a disclosure or protected 

activity described under section 2302(b)(8) or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) was a contributing factor in the personnel action which was 

taken or is to be taken against such employee, 

former employee, or applicant. The employee may 

demonstrate that the disclosure or protected activity was a contributing factor in the personnel action through circumstantial evidence, such as 

evidence that--

(A) the official taking the personnel action knew 

of the disclosure or protected activity; and

(B) the personnel action occurred within a period 

of time such that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure or protected activity was 

a contributing factor in the personnel action.

(2) Corrective action under paragraph (1) may not 

be ordered if, after a finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor, the agency 

demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence 

Case: 15-3111 Document: 43-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/30/2016
6 ADAM v. ARMY

that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such disclosure.

The MSPB held that for Mr. Adam’s 2009 disclosures the

timing requirement of part (e)(1)(B) was met, but that the 

knowledge requirement of part (e)(1)(A) was not met. Mr. 

Adam invokes the “knowledge/timing test” provided by 5 

U.S.C. § 1221(e)(1), whereby the nature of the disclosure 

as a contributing factor may be demonstrated through 

circumstantial evidence. Kewley v. Dep’t of Health & 

Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Mr. 

Adam argues that the nature and seriousness of his 

protected disclosures support an inference that the selection process had been influenced. According to Mr. Adam, 

the MSPB erred in weighing the evidence, asserting that 

the agency failed to submit affidavits from two of the 

three members of the selection panel. 

The MSPB evaluated the record evidence relating to 

the non-selection. The MSPB found only an unsupported 

allegation from Mr. Adam that information of his disclosures was provided to the selection panel. The MSPB 

relied on an affidavit from a member of the selection 

panel that the panel received no information regarding 

the disclosures. The MSPB rejected Mr. Adam’s allegation that the panel was influenced by persons with 

knowledge of the disclosures, based on the panel member’s affidavit testimony to the contrary. The MSPB

referred to the evidence that the selection panel made its 

decisions based solely on performance and disciplinary 

records, noting that the three non-selected candidates, 

including Mr. Adam, had records of past disciplinary 

action. 

On the totality of the record before the MSPB, substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Mr. 

Adam had not shown by a preponderance of evidence that 

the selection committee knew of the asserted whistleblowing or was influenced by those with knowledge, in making 

Case: 15-3111 Document: 43-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/30/2016
ADAM v. ARMY 7

its decision of non-selection. The MSPB’s decision comports with the statute, and is affirmed. 

B 

The MSPB also dismissed Mr. Adam’s IRA appeal 

concerning the 2010 disclosures of nepotism, bribery, and 

disparaging remarks to team members—allegations in 

which eight instructors are reported to have joined. In 

the first appeal, the Board found that Mr. Adam failed to 

make a nonfrivolous allegation that the alleged conduct

constituted the type of conduct, such as “gross mismanagement, fraud, waste, or abuse” to which the whistleblower statute is directed. We discern no basis for 

disturbing the decision of the MSPB on the record presented. We affirm the dismissal of Mr. Adam’s IRA 

appeal related to the 2010 disclosures. 

CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding

that Mr. Adam’s disclosures were not a contributing factor 

to his non-selection. The decision of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board is affirmed.

Each party shall bear its costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3111 Document: 43-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/30/2016