Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03080/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Homeland Security
Respondent
Ty K. Sanders
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TY K. SANDERS,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3080

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-13-0313-I-1. 

______________________ 

Decided: August 13, 2015

______________________ 

TY K. SANDERS, Cedar Key, FL, pro se. 

MARTIN M. TOMLINSON, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT 

E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3080 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/13/2015
2 SANDERS v. DHS

PER CURIAM. 

Ty Sanders appeals from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming the Department of 

Homeland Security’s removal of Mr. Sanders from employment. Mr. Sanders alleges various deficiencies in the 

Board’s decision, including the Board’s consideration of 

expert testimony. Because the Board’s decision contains 

no reversible error, we affirm. 

I 

Mr. Sanders was employed by Homeland Security as a 

Customs and Border Protection Officer (“border officer”). 

Following an incident at work, Mr. Sanders’s supervisors 

required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation, 

which included an in-person interview by Dr. Skop and a 

review of the evidence by Dr. Prunier. Both doctors

concluded that Mr. Sanders was not fit for duty in the 

border officer position. 

Based on the conclusions of this first set of medical 

examiners, Homeland Security removed Mr. Sanders from 

his position. Mr. Sanders appealed to the MSPB. While 

the appeal was pending, Mr. Sanders underwent two 

additional medical evaluations, with Dr. Michael Gower 

and Dr. Tonia Werner. This second set of medical examiners concluded that Mr. Sanders did not suffer any 

diagnosable mental illness and that he was fit for duty.

An administrative judge of the MSPB considered the 

appeal and issued an initial decision. In the initial decision, the administrative judge gave more weight to the

testimony of the second set of medical examiners. In 

addition, the administrative judge reasoned that the

testimony of the second set of medical examiners evidenced that Mr. Sanders had recovered from any condition that had been diagnosed by the first set of medical 

examiners. On these bases, the administrative judge 

reversed the removal of Mr. Sanders. 

Case: 15-3080 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/13/2015
SANDERS v. DHS 3

The agency appealed. The Board reversed the administrative judge’s initial decision and sustained the removal action. In the final decision, the Board discussed the 

competing evaluations of the two sets of medical examiners. Contrary to the initial decision, in the final decision 

the Board gave more weight to the testimony of the first 

set of medical examiners. In particular, the Board reasoned that the first set of medical examiners was more 

familiar with the border officer position and its concomitant responsibilities, and that the second set of medical 

examiners had failed to address certain concerns as to 

substance abuse raised in the evaluations of the first set 

of medical examiners. 

Mr. Sanders appealed to this court.

II

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9)

(2012).1 We will set aside any decision of the Board that 

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) (2012); see also Kewley v. Dep’t 

of Health and Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998). As to element (3), substantial evidence is 

1 Mr. Sanders presented a discrimination claim in 

his initial appeal as decided by the administrative judge. 

A23–24. However, Mr. Sanders did not appeal the administrative judge’s ruling in favor of Homeland Security on 

the discrimination claim to the full board. A4. Mr. Sanders further does not appeal the discrimination claim to 

this court and has affirmatively waived any such claim. 

See Form 10 Statement Concerning Discrimination, ECF 

No. 4. As such, we have no reason to question our jurisdiction. Cf. Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596 (2012).

 

Case: 15-3080 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/13/2015
4 SANDERS v. DHS

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support” the Board’s conclusion. 

Consol. Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 

197, 229 (1938). We review, using the standard of 

§ 7703(c), the Board’s determination that Homeland 

Security properly removed Mr. Sanders. 

The Board’s determination that Homeland Security 

met its burden is not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial evidence. The Board’s conclusion 

that Mr. Sanders’s mental condition disqualified him from 

performing in the border officer position is clearly supported by the testimony of the first set of medical examiners. Though the testimony of the second set of medical 

examiners was to the contrary, the Board properly exercised its discretion to determine that the testimony of the 

first set of medical examiners was more probative as 

being more closely tailored to the duties of the border 

officer position. In addition, the Board discounted the 

value of the testimony of the second set of medical examiners for failure to address the substance abuse findings 

of the first set of medical examiners. As such, the Board 

considered the evidence presented and found a preponderance favoring Homeland Security’s position. This 

conclusion was not arbitrary or capricious, lacking for 

substantial evidence, or otherwise falling within the scope 

of § 7703(c).

Mr. Sanders alleges error in the Board’s consideration 

and weighing of the various forms of expert testimony. In 

particular, Mr. Sanders questions whether the Board 

sufficiently considered the entirety of the evidence, and 

whether the Board properly weighed the expert testimony

evidence from the two sets of medical examiners. As to 

the former challenge, Mr. Sanders refers to the “Memorandum of Transcript: Oral Reply” document as demonstrating the failure of the Board to consider the entirety of 

the evidence. While it is unclear from the final decision 

whether the Board fully considered this document in 

Case: 15-3080 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/13/2015
SANDERS v. DHS 5

making its judgment, our review of this document does 

not reveal any evidence sufficient to overcome the reasoning otherwise put forward by the Board. As to the latter 

challenge, this court will not “substitute our judgment for 

that of the board as to the weight of the evidence or the 

inferences to be drawn therefrom.” See, e.g., Cross v. 

Dep’t of Transp., 127 F.3d 1443, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Mr. Sanders also alleges error in the Board’s consideration of traveler complaints related to Mr. Sanders’s 

performance as a border officer. In particular, 

Mr. Sanders questions whether the traveler complaints 

were legitimate evidence or inadmissible hearsay, with 

reference made to the Federal Rules of Evidence. While 

the Rules of Evidence may be “a helpful guide to proper 

hearing practices,” they do not control Board proceedings. 

Yanopoulos v. Dep’t of Navy, 796 F.2d 468, 471 (Fed. Cir. 

1986). In any event, it does not appear that the traveler 

complaints played any significant part in either the 

evaluations of the two sets of medical examiners or the 

Board’s final decision. Therefore, even if the traveler 

complaints were inadmissible, that status would not 

render the substantial evidence supporting the Board’s 

conclusion thus inadequate.

For these reasons, Mr. Sanders has failed to show 

that the Board’s final decision contained reversible error 

under § 7703(c). Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s 

judgment in reinstating Homeland Security’s removal of 

Mr. Sanders. 

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 15-3080 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/13/2015