Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01163/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Defense
Respondent
Jeffrey A. Randall
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JEFFREY A. RANDALL,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1163

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0752-13-1797-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 13, 2016

______________________ 

JEFFREY A. RANDALL, Columbus, OH, pro se.

ERIN MURDOCK-PARK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC for respondent. Also represented by

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT KIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA 

MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1163 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2016
2 RANDALL v. DEFENSE

PER CURIAM. 

Jeffrey Randall appeals the Merit Systems Protection 

Board’s decision that the Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service properly removed him from his position as a staff 

accountant. Because substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s decision that Mr. Randall misused government 

funds and removal was an appropriate penalty, we affirm. 

I 

While working as a staff accountant with the Defense 

Finance and Accounting Service, Mr. Randall volunteered 

for the Service’s Pandemic Response Group. Because 

Group members were to continue the Service’s functions 

remotely if a pandemic occurred, they qualified for reimbursement for high speed internet in their homes. 

Mr. Randall submitted three reimbursement claims for 

internet services, totaling $1,529.56, which the Service 

paid. The underlying bills showed that internet service

was provided at Mr. Randall’s parents’ address and billed 

to his father. Mr. Randall never directly forwarded the 

reimbursements to his father or the internet service 

provider. In September 2012, a Service accountant noticed the discrepancy between Mr. Randall’s address on 

record and the address on the submitted bills. After 

further investigation, the Service removed Mr. Randall

from service for misuse of agency funds.

Mr. Randall appealed to the Board, which issued its 

final decision on September 2, 2015. Mr. Randall petitions this court, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

II

We may set aside a Board decision only if 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 

Case: 16-1163 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/13/2016
RANDALL v. DEFENSE 3

U.S.C. § 7703(c). Before the Board will sustain an agency’s decision to discharge an employee, the agency must 

establish by preponderant evidence that (1) the charged

conduct occurred; (2) there is a “relationship between the 

misconduct and the objective of promoting the efficiency of 

the service”; and (3) the penalty imposed is reasonable. 

James v. Dale, 355 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Mr. Randall challenges adverse findings on all three 

prongs. Under our limited and highly deferential review, 

his arguments fail.

Here, the Board held that “[i]f, in connection with his 

job, an employee comes to possess government funds, he 

may be charged with misuse if he does not abide by agency rules and regulations regarding such funds.” Resp. 

App’x (R.A.) 04. Mr. Randall argues that only a disbursing official can commit a misuse of agency funds. But

Mr. Randall identifies no reason to limit misuse of funds 

claims to “disbursing officials.” In fact, this court has 

before concluded that an employee who failed to apply a 

reimbursement to a charged expense could be found to 

misuse agency funds. See, e.g., Allen v. United States 

Postal Serv., 466 F.3d 1065, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Mr. Randall also argues that the Board erred by concluding that the Service’s rules did not permit reimbursement for internet service at his parents’ home. 

However, the Board premised its analysis on 

Mr. Randall’s receipt of the Service’s money for costs that 

his father paid for and that were never passed on to 

Mr. Randall, not where the internet services were provided. Even now, Mr. Randall concedes that his claims were 

“invalid” because he “didn’t pay the bill directly, or pay 

his father.” Pet. Br. at 13. Accordingly, substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s decision finding misuse of 

funds. 

On the second prong, Mr. Randall attacks the Board’s 

finding that a nexus existed between his removal and the 

Case: 16-1163 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/13/2016
4 RANDALL v. DEFENSE

Service’s interests because he had volunteered for the 

position. An agency may remove an employee “only for 

such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” 5 

U.S.C. § 7513(a); Doe v. Dep’t of Justice, 565 F.3d 1375, 

1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Absent a mistake of law by the 

Board in selecting the proper test for analyzing the nexus

requirement, which is not present here, we must uphold 

the Board’s nexus finding if it is supported by substantial 

evidence.” Brown v. Dep’t of the Navy, 229 F.3d 1356, 

1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Board found that agency 

“officials emphasized that [Mr. Randall’s] actions caused 

them to question his integrity and lose trust in him, 

particularly given his Accountant position with [the 

Service.]” R.A. 05. These record-supported findings 

constitute substantial evidence of a nexus. 

Next, Mr. Randall challenges his penalty of removal. 

We defer to the agency “unless the penalty exceeds the 

range of permissible punishment specified by statute or 

regulation, or unless the penalty is so harsh and unconscionably disproportionate to the offense that it amounts 

to an abuse of discretion.” Parker v. United States Postal 

Serv., 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The Service permits removal 

for Mr. Randall’s offense, and the deciding official, after 

considering the relevant factors under Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 M.S.P.B. 313 (1981), reasonably viewed 

Mr. Randall’s actions as prioritizing his own financial 

gain. Because the agency’s chosen penalty is not grossly 

disproportionate, the court must affirm the agency’s 

decision. 

III

Mr. Randall’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive. 

Because the Board rendered a final decision supported by 

substantial evidence and free from legal error, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED 

Case: 16-1163 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/13/2016
RANDALL v. DEFENSE 5

No costs.

Case: 16-1163 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/13/2016