Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01819/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01819-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Treasury
Respondent
Hector R. Diaz
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HECTOR R. DIAZ,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1819

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-15-0471-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: August 3, 2016

______________________ 

HECTOR R. DIAZ, Lawrenceville, GA, pro se. 

VITO SALVATORE SOLITRO, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and HUGHES,

Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1819 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2016
2 DIAZ v. TREASURY

PER CURIAM. 

Hector Diaz appeals from the final order of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board sustaining his removal from 

the position of Individual Taxpayer Adviser Specialist. 

Because the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, we 

affirm.

I 

Mr. Diaz was formerly employed by the Department 

of Treasury (Agency) as an Individual Taxpayer Adviser 

Specialist. He was removed from his position after an 

altercation with a taxpayer at the Internal Revenue 

Service’s Taxpayer Assistance Center in Chamblee, 

Georgia. During a hearing in front of the Administrative 

Judge, several witnesses, including the taxpayer, testified 

that Mr. Diaz and the taxpayer were in a “heated exchange” in the walk-in area where employees assist 

taxpayers, and that after the taxpayer exited to the lobby, 

Mr. Diaz followed her and used profanity in loudly threatening her. Mr. Diaz admitted that he used profanity as 

the taxpayer exited the walk-in area, but asserted that he 

did so quietly. 

The Administrative Judge determined that the witnesses other than Mr. Diaz provided credible testimony, 

but found Mr. Diaz’s testimony to be contradicted by other 

evidence and internally inconsistent. Based on the other 

witnesses’ testimony, the Administrative Judge affirmed 

the Agency’s decision to remove Mr. Diaz for unprofessional dealings with a taxpayer and for creating a workplace disruption. The Administrative Judge also declined 

Mr. Diaz’s request to draw an inverse inference against 

the Agency for spoliation of evidence, where the Agency 

had destroyed audio and video recordings of the incident

in the normal course of business. The Board affirmed the 

Case: 16-1819 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/03/2016
DIAZ v. TREASURY 3

Administrative Judge’s initial decision as to both determinations. 

On appeal, Mr. Diaz argues that the Administrative 

Judge erred by relying on the other witnesses’ testimony

and by declining to draw an adverse inference based on 

spoliation of evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

II

We may only hold unlawful and set aside any agency 

action, findings, or conclusions found to be “(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 the Board’s rulings on procedural 

matters relating to discovery and evidentiary issues for 

abuse of discretion. Curtin v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 846 

F.2d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

Mr. Diaz argues that the Administrative Judge improperly relied on the other witnesses’ testimony and 

failed to review a relevant exhibit. Pet.’s Br. at 1. The 

other witnesses consistently testified to the events surrounding the altercation, and contrary to Mr. Diaz’s 

argument, did not present hearsay. Therefore, we do not 

find any error in the Administrative Judge’s determination that the witnesses provided more credible testimony 

than Mr. Diaz. Indeed, such credibility determinations 

are “virtually unreviewable.” See Hambsch v. Dep’t of the 

Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, although the Board acknowledged that the Administrative Judge failed to admit three exhibits, Suppl. App. 

2 n.2, Mr. Diaz has not shown that any alleged error 

caused substantial harm that could have affected the 

outcome of the case, particularly in light of the witnesses’ 

unequivocal statements. See Curtin, 846 F.2d at 1378 

(holding that if an abuse of discretion did occur, the 

Case: 16-1819 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/03/2016
4 DIAZ v. TREASURY

petitioner must prove that the error caused substantial 

harm or prejudice which could have affected the outcome 

of the case). 

We also reject Mr. Diaz’s assertion that the Administrative Judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference based on spoliation of evidence. The records were 

destroyed in the ordinary course of business. Moreover,

Mr. Diaz had an opportunity to request the records during 

discovery but did not do so until the prehearing conference. Suppl. App. 19 n.5. Because Mr. Diaz failed to 

timely request the records, the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in affirming the Administrative Judge’s decision not to draw an adverse inference based on spoliation

of evidence. 

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 16-1819 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/03/2016