Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-02206/USCOURTS-ca13-23-02206-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Justice
Respondent
Carol H. Howard
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

CAROL H. HOWARD,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondent

______________________

2023-2206

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-1221-15-0609-B-1.

______________________

Decided: December 6, 2024

______________________

CAROL H. HOWARD, Apple Valley, CA, pro se. 

 DANIEL HOFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON,PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, CORINNE ANNE 

NIOSI. 

 ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 23-2206 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2024
2 HOWARD v. DOJ

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant Carol H. Howard appeals a final 

decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying her 

request for corrective action. For the following reasons, we 

affirm the Board’s decision. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Howard was a Correctional Treatment Specialist 

for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP” or “agency”) at 

the Federal Correctional Complex in Victorville, California. 

SAppx2; SAppx11.1 In this position, Ms. Howard had to 

meet certain physical standards, such as performing selfdefense movements. SAppx65–66. In 2009, Ms. Howard 

was injured on the job and received work-related 

accommodations. SAppx65–66. In July 2014, the agency 

proposed her removal for physical inability to perform her 

work duties due to her work-related injury. SAppx65–68. 

In September 2014, the BOP removed Ms. Howard. 

SAppx69–72. According to Ms. Howard, she would have 

reached retirement eligibility from the agency in 2015. 

Appellant Informal Br. 3. 

While her proposed removal was pending, Ms. Howard 

filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint before the Office of 

Special Counsel (“OSC”), alleging she was wrongfully 

removed in retaliation for whistleblowing. SAppx76. In 

her OSC complaint, Ms. Howard alleged that she made six

protected disclosures to the agency which resulted in her 

removal from the agency.2 SAppx4. The OSC closed Ms. 

1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix 

accompanying the appellee’s responding brief.

2 An employee may bring a claim under the 

Whistleblower Protection Act, showing that she made a 

“protected disclosure,” which is the disclosure of 

information that she reasonably believes “evidences (i) a 

violation of law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross 

Case: 23-2206 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2024
HOWARD v. DOJ 3

Howard’s complaint, finding no proof of improper 

whistleblowing reprisal. SAppx2. 

Ms. Howard then filed an individual right of action 

(“IRA”) appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(“MSPB” or “Board”). SAppx85. This IRA appeal 

ultimately gave rise to the appeal before this court. 

SAppx2. 

In the IRA appeal, the administrative judge (“AJ”) 

denied Ms. Howard’s request for corrective action. 

SAppx97–98. Ms. Howard petitioned for review of the AJ’s 

initial decision. On review, the Board vacated the AJ’s 

initial decision and remanded for further adjudication. 

SAppx7. The Board determined that the AJ failed to 

address six disclosures Ms. Howard identified in her OSC 

complaint as allegedly motivating her removal. The Board 

ordered the AJ to address the following disclosures on 

remand: 

1. The lack of a RESOLVE program,3 allegedly 

in violation of the agency’s guidelines;

2. That all full-time psychology services were 

vacated at the camp and staff were called 

into work on an as-needed basis, allegedly to 

save costs so that the executive staff could 

receive bonuses;

3. That an inmate was not treated 

appropriately by the Chief of Psychology

mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of 

authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public 

health or safety.” Chambers v. Dep’t of Interior, 515 F.3d 

1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting 5 

U.S.C. § 2303(b)(8)(a)). 

3 The RESOLVE program assists inmates in dealing

with trauma that predates their incarceration. SAppx51. 

Case: 23-2206 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 12/06/2024
4 HOWARD v. DOJ

after she alleged she had been threatened by 

other inmates;

4. Reprisal for allegations of discrimination 

that Ms. Howard raised in 2014 on behalf of 

herself and others in her role as a union 

representative, and reprisal for her own 

equal employment opportunity (EEO)

complaints; 

5. That a particular employee had a degree in 

philosophy, not psychology, but was 

permitted to practice on inmates, which was 

illegal and harmful; and

6. That the agency hired unlicensed 

psychologists to practice on inmates.

SAppx3–5. 

On remand, and without holding an additional

hearing, the AJ denied Ms. Howard’s request for corrective 

action. SAppx9 (“Remand Decision”). The AJ determined 

that Ms. Howard failed to prove by preponderant evidence 

that her six disclosures were protected under the law. See 

SAppx21–26. The AJ then found that, assuming Ms. 

Howard made protected disclosures, the agency showed by 

clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the 

same action absent the disclosures. SAppx26. Ms. Howard 

petitioned for review of the AJ’s Remand Decision. 

Back on review, the Board affirmed-in-part the AJ’s 

Remand Decision, concluding that Ms. Howard failed to 

meet her burden of proving she made protected disclosures.

SAppx48–49 (“Final Decision”). The Board narrowly

vacated the AJ’s Remand Decision concerning the AJ’s 

alternative finding that the agency would have taken the 

same action in the absence of a disclosure. SAppx47. The 

Board explained that the AJ cannot proceed to that inquiry 

unless it first finds that the appellant established that she 

made a protected disclosure. SAppx50. 

Case: 23-2206 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 12/06/2024
HOWARD v. DOJ 5

Ms. Howard appeals the Board’s Final Decision. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our review of Board decisions is limited. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(c). We set aside a Board decision only when 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.” Id. 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Ms. Howard alleges that the Board’s Final 

Decision is arbitrary and capricious because it did not 

consider certain facts relating to her time of employment. 

Appellant Informal Br. 2. Ms. Howard also argues that the 

Board legally erred by failing to rely on certain laws. Id. 

For the following reasons, we affirm the Board’s Final 

Decision. 

Turning first to Ms. Howard’s factual challenge, Ms. 

Howard alleges that the Board wrongfully overlooked that: 

1. Her injury was work-related; 

2. She was terminated in retaliation for protected 

disclosures of “sexual abuse of staff and inmates, 

denial of veterans benefits, racism, sexism, etc.” and 

that her termination occurred after 19 years and 10 

months of “outstanding” job performance and 10 

months shy of her retirement;

3. & 4., She received yearly outstanding job 

performance ratings, including one four months 

prior to her termination;

4

4 Ms. Howard’s third and fourth points were 

repetitive and are thus grouped together here. 

Case: 23-2206 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 12/06/2024
6 HOWARD v. DOJ

5. An agency policy allowed transfers of “executive 

staff” whose safety was of concern but terminated 

“regular staff” who had the same concern; 

6. A BOP attorney stated that the “Black Warden” was 

assigned to the “Black staff” to deflect any 

complaints of racism. 

Appellant Informal Br. 2.

Ms. Howard’s factual challenge fails. Ms. Howard does 

not explain, nor do we discern, how such facts relate to the 

Board’s Final Decision. The Board determined that Ms. 

Howard’s disclosures to the agency did not qualify as 

protected disclosures under the law. These new facts 

raised on appeal do not relate to Ms. Howard’s alleged

protected disclosures concerning agency practices and 

programs and also alleged discrimination based on her role 

as a union representative. To the extent Ms. Howard seeks 

to raise new whistleblower claims on appeal, such claims 

are barred as waived. Kachanis v. Dep’t of Treasury, 212 

F.3d 1289, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[A]ppellants may not 

raise issues on appeal for the first time.”).5

Turning to Ms. Howard’s legal challenge, Ms. Howard 

argues the Board applied the wrong law and lists several 

statutes and cases that the Board should have applied 

instead. Appellant Informal Br. 2 (referencing 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 2302, 1214, and 1221, two Federal Circuit cases and two 

MSPB cases). This argument fails. The statutes Ms. 

Howard lists were cited and applied in the Board’s Final 

Decision. See SAppx24; SAppx49. Additionally, the cases 

5 Additionally, although regrettable timing, Ms. 

Howard’s removal months shy of her alleged retirement 

does not, without more, call into question the validity of the 

Board’s Final Decision. 

Case: 23-2206 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 12/06/2024
HOWARD v. DOJ 7

that Ms. Howard lists were not discussed by the Board 

because they do not apply to the facts of Ms. Howard’s case. 

For example, Ms. Howard references Carr v. Social 

Security Administration, where the issue was whether the 

agency sufficiently showed that it would have removed the 

appellant absent her protected disclosures. 185 F.3d 1318, 

1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the Board did not reach this 

issue because Ms. Howard failed to show that she made 

any protected disclosures to begin with. SAppx48; 

SAppx50. Thus, Carr is inapposite to the facts of this case 

and the Board did not need to discuss it. We fail to see any 

legal error in the Board’s Final Decision. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Howard’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing 

reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-2206 Document: 33 Page: 7 Filed: 12/06/2024