Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03073/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03073-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Air Force
Respondent
Carl D. Hayden
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CARL D. HAYDEN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3073

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-4324-13-0534-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 12, 2016

______________________ 

STEPHEN J. SMITH, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also represented by KRISTIN LEIGH YOHANNAN MOORE. 

RENÉE GERBER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

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

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/12/2016
2 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Carl D. Hayden (“Hayden”) seeks review of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) decision denying 

his request for corrective action under the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 

1994 (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. § 4301, et. seq. Specifically, 

Hayden alleged that the Department of the Air Force 

(“Air Force”) violated USERRA when it: (1) denied him a 

promotion due to his military service; (2) denied him the 

benefit of reemployment in the position he would have 

obtained had the agency processed his position upgrade; 

and (3) retaliated against him after he sought USERRA 

protections. The Board rejected all three of Hayden’s 

claims. Hayden v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. CH-4324-13-

0534-I-1, 2014 WL 6879135 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 4, 2014) (“Final Decision”). We agree with the Board that Hayden

failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his

reemployment and retaliation claims. With respect to his 

claim of discrimination based on military service, however, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further 

factfinding.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Hayden is a member of the Air Force Reserve and has 

worked as a protocol specialist at the Wright-Patterson 

Air Force Base since March 2002. The Wright-Patterson 

Air Force Base is geographically divided into Area A and 

Area B—each of which has its own protocol office. When 

Hayden began working at the Base, he worked in B 

Flight, which is responsible for all protocol support arising on Area B of the Base. At that time, his position was 

classified as GS-9. Final Decision, 2014 WL 6879135, at 

¶ 2.

In 2010, Hayden transferred to the protocol office in A 

Flight, which is responsible for protocol support for Area 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 3

A as well as the Air Force Security Assistance Center 

(“AFSAC”). Id. Because he acquired new duties during 

the transfer, the agency upgraded Hayden’s position from 

GS-9 to GS-11. Id. 

The B Flight Protocol Office lost two GS-12 positions 

in November 2011. Id. at ¶ 3. The employees in those 

positions were declared as “surplus,” meaning that they 

“were not working in permanently authorized positions.” 

Id. While one of those employees was subsequently 

placed in another position, the other became a “mandatory placement priority and was still in that status when 

the appellant filed the petition for review.” Id. 

On March 26, 2012, Hayden’s supervisor submitted a 

request to upgrade his position to GS-12, “based on accretion of duties at the higher grade level.” Id. at ¶ 4. To 

justify the upgrade, his supervisor wrote:

Over abundance [sic] of events to work and not 

enough GS-12’s to perform the duties. Often assign Carl events that are above GS-11 duties due 

to both requirements and to develop his growth. 

He is working above his pay grade and has shown 

he is capable of performing at a GS-12 grade level.

Id. 

At the end of March 2012, Hayden received military 

orders to begin active service on April 10, 2012. His duty 

was subsequently extended in July 2012. In May 2012, a 

human resources position classifier notified Hayden’s 

supervisor that she needed to conduct a desk audit before 

upgrading his position. The position classifier explained 

that she needed to interview Hayden in person for the 

audit, and was unable to do so while he was on extended 

active duty. Id. at ¶ 5. Hayden’s supervisor notified him 

that the upgrade had been cancelled because he was in 

nonpay status, but “[o]nce [you] return in January we will 

re-engage!” Id. In July 2012, however, protocol support 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/12/2016
4 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

duties for the AFSAC were transferred from the A Flight 

protocol unit to another unit, thus reducing the need for 

GS-12 level employees in the unit. Id. 

Hayden returned from active duty in December 2012, 

and returned to his GS-11 position. Although he received 

his within-grade increase, his supervisor did not resubmit 

the request to upgrade his position. Id. at ¶ 6. According 

to Hayden, his supervisor “was unable to explain why the 

upgrade was not being processed.” Id. Hayden performed 

additional reserve duty from March 4-8, 2013. He subsequently met with his supervisor on March 13, 2013, and 

asked her to resubmit the upgrade request. According to 

Hayden, “she informed him that she did not recommend 

his promotion because he had been absent too often for 

his Reserve duties.” Id. Hayden “immediately sought 

assistance from the base Employer Support of the Guard 

Reserve (ESGR) office.” Id. 

The next day, Hayden met with his supervisors to discuss his performance. “During the meeting, the Chief of 

Protocol raised concerns about [Hayden’s] performance 

that, he alleged, had never been raised before, though he 

admitted at the hearing that the concerns did not lack 

foundation.” Id. at ¶ 7. On May 20, 2013, Hayden received a performance feedback memorandum which 

stated that he was no longer working at the GS-12 level. 

Id. at ¶ 8. The agency did not request an upgrade to 

Hayden’s position. 

B. Procedural History 

On May 28, 2013, Hayden filed a request for corrective action with the Board, alleging USERRA violations. 

Hayden argued that: (1) he was denied a promotion due to 

his military service; (2) he was denied a benefit of 

reemployment in the position he would have obtained had 

the agency processed his upgrade; and (3) the agency 

retaliated against him after he sought USERRA protections. 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 5

In response, the agency argued that, due to organizational restructuring in July 2012, while Hayden was on 

reserve duty, there was a reduced need for GS-12 protocol 

officers in the A Flight Protocol Office. The agency also 

explained that: (1) it could not have placed Hayden in a 

GS-12 position without allowing other officers at his same 

level to compete; and (2) it was obligated to place the 

remaining surplus GS-12 employee. Final Decision, 2014 

WL 6879135, at ¶ 9.

After a videoconference hearing, the administrative 

judge (“AJ”) denied Hayden’s request for corrective action, 

“finding that he had not shown by preponderant evidence 

that his military service was a substantial or motivating 

factor in the agency’s failure to promote him.” Id. at ¶ 10. 

Indeed, the AJ found that Hayden “produced no evidence 

whatsoever that his military service was considered 

adversely when the agency failed to promote him.” Hayden v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. CH-4324-13-0534-I-1, 

2013 MSPB LEXIS 5635, at *4 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 5, 2013) 

(“Initial Decision”). During the hearing, there was testimony that the Chief of Protocol requested a desk audit 

and that the audit could not be completed because Hayden was not at work for the interview. Id. at *5. The AJ 

found that, even if a desk audit had been performed, 

Hayden would still have been required to compete for the 

GS-12 position. Id. Finally, the AJ found that Hayden 

failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to retaliation. Id. at *6.

Hayden filed a petition for review to the full Board. 

The Board vacated the Initial Decision, but denied Hayden’s request for corrective action. Final Decision, 2014 

WL 6879135, at ¶ 1. As to Hayden’s first claim—that he 

was denied a benefit due to his military service—the 

Board found that, contrary to the AJ’s decision, there was 

evidence from which one could conclude that Hayden’s 

military service was a motivating factor in the agency’s 

decision not to upgrade his position. Id. at ¶ 14. The 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/12/2016
6 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

Board found “a temporal link between the appellant’s 

extended period of Reserve duty and the agency’s decision 

not to upgrade his position.” Id. at ¶ 16. In particular, 

the Board pointed to testimony from Hayden’s supervisor 

that none of her prior position upgrade requests had 

required in-person desk audits, and that she had participated in a telephone audit for Hayden’s earlier position 

upgrade to GS-11. Id. The position classifier who examined the upgrade request testified that she was aware of 

only about ten requests that had not been granted out of 

the hundreds she had processed. Id. And Hayden testified that, during his March 13, 2013 conversation with his 

supervisor, she informed him that his position had not 

been upgraded because “he spent too much time out of the 

office for Reserve duties.” Id. at ¶ 17. The Board concluded that the evidence showed that the agency considered Hayden’s absence in making its decision not to 

upgrade his position. 

Although the Board found that the AJ had erred, it 

nonetheless concluded that Hayden’s USERRA claims 

failed. Though there was sufficient evidence to shift the 

burden of proof for Hayden’s first claim to the agency, the 

Board found that the agency met its burden to establish 

that it did not deny the upgrade request because Hayden 

was on military duty. Id. at ¶ 25. The Board found that 

the agency delayed processing the upgrade request because Hayden was unavailable for an in-person desk 

audit, which the position classifier testified was typically 

conducted when the upgraded position was at or above 

the GS-12 level. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 25. And, when Hayden 

returned, the workload in the office had changed such 

that additional GS-12 protocol officers were not needed. 

Id. at ¶ 25. The Board concluded that the agency showed 

that it “decided not to pursue the upgrade both during 

and after the appellant’s absence based on valid reasons 

other than the appellant’s service in the Air Force Reserve.” Id. 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 7

As for Hayden’s second claim—that he was denied 

reemployment rights when he returned from military 

duty—the Board found that Hayden was not entitled to

return to a GS-12 position. The Board explained that the 

“A Flight Protocol Office lost its additional high-level 

duties about 4 months after the upgrade request was 

submitted and after the B Flight Protocol Office had 

declared two GS-12 Protocol Officers in surplus status a 

few months earlier.” Id. at ¶ 29. The record showed, 

therefore, that the protocol office no longer needed another GS-12 protocol officer. Id. In any event, the Board 

found that Hayden would have had to compete for the 

upgraded position because there was another GS-11 

protocol officer in A Flight. Id. Accordingly, the Board 

found no guarantee that Hayden would have received the 

upgraded position but for his military service. Id. at ¶ 31. 

Finally, the Board rejected Hayden’s third claim—

that the agency retaliated against him for seeking assistance from the ESGR to enforce his USERRA rights. The 

Board found that Hayden “adduced no evidence . . . that 

the agency bore any discriminatory animus towards him 

and he thus failed to meet his initial burden of proof.” Id. 

at ¶ 33. To the contrary, the Board found that the agency 

established that Hayden’s supervisors “were concerned 

about helping him overcome a decline in his performance 

and prepare for eventual promotion to GS-12.” Id. 

Hayden timely appealed the Board’s decision to this 

court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). By letter dated 

October 14, 2015, counsel for Hayden informed the court 

that Hayden was promoted to a GS-12 Protocol Specialist 

position effective September 20, 2015. That promotion 

moots some of the relief requested in this appeal. Hayden 

continues to seek an award of “back pay, interest, and 

other benefits to which he is entitled, including attorneys’ 

fees and litigation expenses,” however. Pet’r Br. 17 (citing 

38 U.S.C. § 4324; 20 C.F.R. § 1002.312).

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 7 Filed: 02/12/2016
8 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision 

of the Board is limited. We must affirm the Board’s 

decision 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). 

Hayden maintains that the agency committed three 

separate USERRA violations and that the Board erred in 

its analysis of each. First, he argues that the Board failed 

to apply the requisite burden shifting framework to his 

discrimination claim. According to Hayden, the Board’s 

rejection of his discrimination claim “is premised on 

hindsight that allows the Air Force to justify its discrimination based on the later results of that discrimination.” 

Pet’r Br. 16. Next, Hayden argues that the Board erred in 

finding that he failed to meet his burden to demonstrate 

that he was entitled to reemployment at the GS-12 level 

when he returned from military service. Finally, Hayden 

argues that the Board’s analysis of his retaliation claim is 

unsupported by substantial evidence and ignores its own 

recognition of discriminatory animus in its analysis of the 

discrimination claim. We address each of these issues in 

turn. 

A. Discrimination Claim

USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating 

against their employees because of their military service, 

and affords certain protections to military service members with respect to their civilian employment. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 4311(a). It provides, in relevant part, that:

A person who is a member of, applies to be a 

member of, performs, has performed, applies to 

perform, or has an obligation to perform service in 

a uniformed service shall not be denied initial 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 8 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 9

employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that 

membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation.

Id. 

We analyze USERRA discrimination claims under a 

burden-shifting framework. Sheehan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 

240 F.3d 1009, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Applying this 

framework, an employee who makes a discrimination 

claim under USERRA bears the initial burden of showing, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that his military 

service was a substantial or motivating factor in the 

adverse employment action. Id. As we have explained,

“military service is a motivating factor for an adverse 

employment action if the employer ‘relied on, took into 

account, considered, or conditioned its decision’ on the 

employee’s military-related absence or obligation.” Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (quoting Petty v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville–Davidson 

Cty., 538 F.3d 431, 446 (6th Cir. 2008)). 

Discriminatory motivation or intent “may be proven 

by either direct or circumstantial evidence.” Sheehan, 240 

F.3d at 1014. In Sheehan, we explained that:

Discriminatory motivation under the USERRA 

may be reasonably inferred from a variety of factors, including proximity in time between the employee’s military activity and the adverse 

employment action, inconsistencies between the 

proffered reason and other actions of the employer, an employer’s expressed hostility towards 

members protected by the statute together with 

knowledge of the employee’s military activity, and 

disparate treatment of certain employees comCase: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 9 Filed: 02/12/2016
10 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

pared to other employees with similar work records or offenses.

Id. “In determining whether the employee has proven 

that his protected status was part of the motivation for 

the agency’s conduct, all record evidence may be considered, including the agency’s explanation for the actions 

taken.” Id. 

Where an employee makes the prima facie showing of 

discriminatory motivation or intent, “the employer can 

avoid liability by demonstrating, as an affirmative defense, that it would have taken the same action without 

regard to the employee’s military service.” Erickson, 571 

F.3d at 1368; see 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c)(1). “An employer 

therefore violates section 4311 if it would not have taken 

the adverse employment action but for the employee’s 

military service or obligation.” Erickson, 571 F.3d at 

1368.

Here, the Board found that “the agency considered 

[Hayden’s] absences for Reserve duty when it decided not 

to process the upgrade request during his absence and not 

to pursue the upgrade upon his return.” Final Decision, 

2014 WL 6879135, at ¶ 19. Weighing all of the evidence, 

the Board concluded “that the agency considered the 

appellant’s military absences to be problematic, and the 

absences were a motivating factor in the agency’s failure 

to provide the position upgrade.” Id. Accordingly, the 

Board found that Hayden satisfied his initial burden. 

The Board then purported to shift the burden to the 

agency to demonstrate, by preponderant evidence, “that it 

would have taken the same action without considering his 

military service.” Id. at ¶ 20 (citing Erickson, 571 F.3d at 

1368). The agency explained that it did not upgrade 

Hayden’s position because: (1) the position classifier had 

the practice of conducting in-person desk audits for any 

position at the GS-12 level or above; and (2) by the time 

Hayden returned, the A Flight Protocol Office had a 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 10 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 11

reduced workload. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. The agency further 

argued that Hayden would have had to compete for the 

upgraded position, and that “the GS-12 employees from B 

Flight who had been declared as surplus would have had 

internal priority over the applicant.” Id. at ¶ 20.

The Board found that, taken as a whole, “the evidence 

does not show that the agency denied the upgrade request 

because the appellant was on military duty. Instead, it 

shows that processing of the request was delayed because 

the appellant was temporarily unavailable for part of the 

consideration process and was on leave without pay.” Id. 

at ¶ 25. The Board concluded that the “agency has thus 

shown that it decided not to pursue the upgrade both 

during and after the appellant’s absence based on valid 

reasons other than the appellant’s service in the Air Force 

Reserve. Accordingly, the agency met its burden of proof 

under section 4311(a).” Id. 

On appeal, Hayden contends that the Board failed to 

properly shift the burden to the agency to justify its 

actions in not promoting him and that, if it had, the 

agency could not have met its burden. In particular, 

Hayden argues that: (1) the Board erred in finding that a 

desk audit was required to process his position upgrade; 

(2) the Board erred in determining that he would have 

had to compete for the promotion; and (3) the Board’s 

finding that the Protocol Office no longer needed GS-12 

employees “is irrelevant because at the time Mr. Hayden’s 

upgrade request was placed . . . there were not enough 

GS-12s to perform the duties of the office and thus [his]

position needed to be upgraded.” Pet’r Br. 21. As explained below, we agree with Hayden that the Board did 

not hold the agency to its burden.

First, as the Board noted, the Office of Personnel 

Management (“OPM”) Classifier’s Handbook explains that 

a desk audit “is no more than a conversation []or interview with the person in the job, or with the supervisor of 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 11 Filed: 02/12/2016
12 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

the position, or with both . . . to gain as much information 

as possible about the position.” Final Decision, 2014 WL 

6879135, at ¶ 21. The position classifier testified that 

“she normally conducted an in-person desk audit when 

the upgraded position would have been at or above the 

GS-12 level.” Id. It is undisputed, however, that the 

decision to conduct a desk audit is discretionary. Id. 

Indeed, Hayden’s supervisor testified that “none of her 

prior position upgrade requests had required in-person 

desk audits” and that “she had participated in a telephonic audit for [Hayden’s] position upgrade to GS-11.” Id. at 

¶ 16. 

Although the Board recognized that a desk audit was 

not necessary for Hayden’s position upgrade, it nonetheless credited the agency’s argument “that it was unable to 

complete the desk audit and process the upgrade because 

[Hayden] was unavailable.” Id. at ¶ 20. The Board then 

concluded that the agency had shown that it denied the 

upgrade request in part because Hayden was “temporarily 

unavailable for part of the consideration process.” Id. at 

¶ 25. We agree with Hayden that his “inability to complete an optional procedure cannot form a legally cognizable basis to discriminate against him because of his 

military service.” Pet’r Br. 23. 

This court has made clear that an “employer cannot 

escape liability under USERRA by claiming that it was 

merely discriminating against an employee on the basis of 

his absence when that absence was for military service.” 

Erickson, 571 F.3d at 1368. And we have recognized that

“the overarching goal of [USERRA] is to prevent those 

who serve in the uniformed services from being disadvantaged by virtue of performing their military obligations.” 

Id. As we explained in Erickson, the “most significant—

and predictable—consequence of reserve service with 

respect to the employer is that the employee is absent to 

perform that service.” Id. Although an agency is “entitled 

to remove an employee for prolonged non-military leaves 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 12 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 13

of absence . . . ‘an employer can not treat employees on 

military duty like those on non-military leave of absence.’” 

Id. at 1369 (quoting Allen v. U.S. Postal Serv., 142 F.3d 

1444, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Erickson thus stands for 

the proposition that an employee’s military absence 

cannot be held against him, and that employers cannot 

treat employees on military leave like those on nonmilitary leave of absences. 

Hayden was not available for an in-person desk audit 

precisely because he was performing his military obligations. That the agency may otherwise be entitled to 

cancel a position upgrade request when an employee on 

non-military leave fails to attend a requested interview is 

of no moment. See Erickson, 571 F.3d at 1369. The fact 

remains that Hayden was absent from work because of 

his military service, and USERRA protects against adverse employment actions resulting from such absences. 

The mere fact that the position classifier preferred to 

conduct an in-person desk audit for an upgrade at or 

above the GS-12 level is irrelevant. Under Erickson, she 

was not entitled to impose that mere preference on a 

person who is on military leave. The bottom line is that 

an in-person desk audit was not required. To say that 

Hayden was not eligible for an upgrade because he was 

unavailable for a discretionary audit that could have been 

performed via telephone or by interviewing his immediate 

supervisor violates USERRA. See id. at 1368 (permitting 

an employer to take an adverse action against an employee because of his military absence “would eviscerate the 

protections afforded by USERRA”). Accordingly, the 

Board erred in finding that the agency could avoid liability for failing to process the position upgrade request 

because Hayden was unavailable for an in-person desk 

audit. 

Next, Hayden argues that the Board erred in determining that he was not entitled to a noncompetitive 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 13 Filed: 02/12/2016
14 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

position upgrade at the time his supervisor requested the 

upgrade. In support, Hayden points out that OPM regulations give agencies discretion to except certain actions 

from competitive procedures. 5 C.F.R. § 335.103(c)(3). 

One such exception is for a “promotion resulting from an 

employee’s position being classified at a higher grade 

because of additional duties and responsibilities.” Id. at 

§ 335.103(c)(3)(ii). Hayden also argues that he qualified 

for a noncompetitive upgrade under the Air Force’s civilian staffing rules.1 As the Board recognized, Hayden’s 

supervisor submitted the upgrade request because he was 

performing additional duties and responsibilities at the 

GS-12 level and because there were “not enough GS-12’s 

[sic] to perform the duties.” Final Decision, 2014 WL 

6879135, at ¶ 4. Hayden submits that, in these circumstances, he was entitled to a noncompetitive position 

upgrade.

The agency responds that, even if the agency proceeded with the upgrade request, Hayden would have had to 

compete for the GS-12 position. In particular, the agency 

 

1 Specifically, the Air Force Manual provides that: 

If a position is upgraded due to accretion/assignment of additional higher grade duties 

and responsibilities, the incumbent may be noncompetitively promoted provided there is clear evidence that the employee continues to perform the 

same basic functions as in the former position, 

that there are no other employees serving in similar or identical positions to whom the duties could 

be assigned, and he/she meets all qualification 

and legal requirements for promotion. 

Air Force Manual 36-203: Staffing Civilian Positions, 

¶ 2.9.6 (Dec. 12, 2002) (Incorporating Change 1, June 

2006).

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 14 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 15

submits that: (1) there was another GS-11 protocol specialist in the office who would have been eligible to compete; and (2) the surplus employee whose GS-12 position 

had been eliminated would have had priority over Hayden 

for any such position. According to the agency, the Board 

“properly determined that those employees’ status constituted evidence supporting the agency’s claim that it would 

not have promoted Mr. Hayden even if it had not considered his military absence when it decided not to upgrade 

the position.” Resp’t Br. 19.

As counsel for the agency conceded at oral argument, 

the agency had the burden to show, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that Hayden would have had to compete for 

the position upgrade and that he would not have received 

it, regardless of his military service. Oral Argument at 

16:48-17:15, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.

uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2015-3073.mp3. Careful 

review of the Board’s decision reveals that it did not hold 

the agency to that burden, however. 

In the context of Hayden’s discrimination claim, the 

Board merely noted the agency’s argument that it could 

not upgrade the position noncompetitively because: 

(1) there were two protocol specialists at the GS-11 level, 

which would have triggered competition under the agency’s regulations; and (2) even if the position were filled 

competitively, surplus employees “would have had internal priority over the appellant.” Final Decision, 2014 WL 

6879135, at ¶ 20. In the next sentence, however, the 

Board stated that, “appellant thus could not show he 

would have been placed automatically in the upgraded 

position or whether the position upgrade would have been 

approved.” Id. (emphasis added). But the burden was 

not on Hayden to show he would have won any competition for the upgrade position. Having demonstrated that 

his military service was a motivating factor in the agency’s decision to cancel his upgrade, Hayden satisfied his 

burden with respect to the discrimination claim, and the 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 15 Filed: 02/12/2016
16 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

burden shifted to the agency to show it would not have 

processed the upgrade without regard to his military 

service. Erickson, 571 F.3d at 1368; Sheehan, 240 F.3d at 

1013. 

On this record, we conclude that the Board failed to 

make sufficient factfindings with respect to: (1) whether 

Hayden would have had to compete for the position; 

and (2) whether he would have been successful in doing 

so. There are no findings as to whether the position could 

have been noncompetitively upgraded at the time the 

upgrade was requested. Nor is there any evidence or 

factfinding as to whether the surplused employee necessarily would have been chosen over Hayden. Although 

the Board states that Hayden would have had to compete 

for the upgraded position such that it “is not certain he 

would have been selected,” those findings were in the 

context of Hayden’s reemployment claim which, as discussed below, requires application of a different standard 

and different burden of proof. Final Decision, 2014 WL 

6879135, at ¶ 29. The fact remains that, in the context of 

Hayden’s discrimination claim, the agency had the burden to show that its decision to cancel the upgrade request would have remained the same even if his military 

leave was not a factor. Because there is insufficient 

evidence that, had the agency processed the upgrade at 

the time it was requested, Hayden would have had to 

compete for the position and would not have won, we 

vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further findings. 

Finally, Hayden argues that the Board erroneously 

credited the agency’s argument that the A Flight Protocol 

Office no longer needed additional GS-12 officers after 

Hayden’s return. Specifically, he argues that reliance on 

this evidence was erroneous “because the changes to the 

Protocol Office’s organizational structure occurred after 

the Air Force cancelled Mr. Hayden’s position upgrade 

request.” Pet’r Br. 25. 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 16 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 17

It is undisputed that the workload in the A Flight 

Protocol Office decreased in July 2012. Final Decision, 

2014 WL 6879135, at ¶ 5. Given this change, the Board 

found that, by the time Hayden returned to the office in 

December 2012, the office no longer needed additional GS12 protocol officers. Id. at ¶ 25. Substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s conclusion that, at the time Hayden 

returned to work, the agency had a legitimate reason for 

not upgrading Hayden’s position to the GS-12 level. The 

record is devoid of evidence as to how long an upgrade 

request typically takes to process, however. The agency 

has not proven, accordingly, that, had the request gone 

forward in March 2012, Hayden would not have received 

the upgrade before the workload in the A Flight Protocol 

Office decreased. There is also no evidence as to how long 

any decrease in workload lasted, leaving largely unexplained why Hayden’s upgrade was not renewed until so 

long after his return. 

Because the agency could not use the discretionary inperson desk audit to justify its decision to cancel Hayden’s 

upgrade request, and because the Board did not hold the 

agency to its burden with respect to competition at the 

time the request was made, we remand for further factfinding. Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s decision with 

respect to Hayden’s discrimination claim.

B. Reemployment Claim

USERRA also provides service members protection in 

the form of a right to reemployment in their civilian jobs 

after completing their military obligations. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 4312(a). The regulations further provide that an agency 

“must consider employees absent on military duty for any 

incident or advantage of employment that they may have 

been entitled to had they not been absent.” 5 C.F.R. 

§ 353.106(c). The agency must therefore evaluate whether: 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 17 Filed: 02/12/2016
18 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

(1) “the ‘incident or advantage’ is one generally 

granted to all employees in that workplace and 

whether it was denied solely because of absence 

for military service;”

(2) “the person absent on military duty was treated the same as if the person had remained at 

work;” and

(3) “it was reasonably certain that the benefit 

would have accrued to the employee but for the 

absence for military service.”

Id. 

The Board concluded that Hayden was not entitled to 

reemployment at the GS-12 level when he returned from 

military leave. First, the Board found that Hayden could 

not establish that a position upgrade is a benefit generally 

granted to all agency employees. Final Decision, 2014 WL 

6879135, at ¶ 28. In reaching this conclusion, the Board 

explained, “[a]n example of a ‘generally granted’ benefit of 

employment is a within-grade increase, which is granted 

when an employee performing at the fully satisfactory 

level or better accrues a certain amount of time-in-grade.” 

Id. 

According to Hayden, even if the position upgrade was 

not “an incident or advantage generally granted to all 

employees, as found by the MSPB, consideration for a 

position upgrade is available to all employees.” Pet’r Br. 

29-30. In support, Hayden argues that the agency “promoted another GS-11 Protocol Office employee, one who 

was not serving in the military, to a GS-12 position.” Id. 

at 30. The evidence Hayden cites does not establish that 

the agency failed to consider him for an upgrade, however. 

The agency explains, moreover, that the employee who 

was promoted had a position with a full performance level 

of GS-12, which meant that it was a personal, noncompetitive promotion, not a position upgrade. Importantly,

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 18 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 19

there is no evidence that all employees are considered for 

position upgrades beyond their current performance 

levels. 

Next, because the A Flight Protocol Office lost its additional duties four months after the upgrade request, 

and after the B Flight Protocol Office placed two GS-12 

protocol officers on surplus status, the Board could not 

determine what would have happened if Hayden had 

remained at work. Id. ¶ 29. It concluded, however, that it 

was not “reasonably certain” that Hayden would have 

received the upgrade. Although Hayden was a valued 

employee with outstanding performance ratings, the 

Board found that “he and another employee were in GS11 positions at the full performance level, unlike the 

employee who was promoted to GS-12.” Id. at ¶ 31. The 

Board further noted that Hayden’s performance “suffered 

after his return, which the agency documented,” but that 

it was still willing to promote him if a GS-12 position 

became available. Id. 

On appeal, Hayden argues that the upgrade was 

“reasonably certain” given: (1) testimony from the position 

classifier that she was aware of only ten upgrade requests 

out of the hundreds that she had processed that were not 

granted; (2) his outstanding performance reviews; (3) his 

prior upgrade from GS-9 to GS-11; and (4) the fact that he 

was already performing GS-12 duties. Although Hayden 

disagrees with the Board’s factfindings, we decline his

invitation to reweigh the facts on appeal. Substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s determination that the 

position upgrade is not a generally granted benefit and 

that it was not reasonably certain that Hayden would 

have received it, a showing that, in this context, was 

Hayden’s burden to make. As such, we affirm the Board’s 

decision with respect to Hayden’s reemployment claim. 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 19 Filed: 02/12/2016
20 HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE

C. Retaliation Claim 

USERRA prohibits retaliation against employees for 

exercising their rights under the statute. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 4311(b). It provides that:

An employer may not discriminate in employment 

against or take any adverse employment action 

against any person because such person (1) has 

taken an action to enforce a protection afforded 

any person under this chapter, (2) has testified or 

otherwise made a statement in or in connection 

with any proceeding under this chapter, (3) has 

assisted or otherwise participated in an investigation under this chapter, or (4) has exercised a 

right provided for in this chapter. The prohibition 

in this subsection shall apply with respect to a 

person regardless of whether that person has performed service in the uniformed services.

Id. The standard for a retaliation claim is the same as 

that for a discrimination claim: the employee must first 

establish that his protected actions were a motivating 

factor in the employer’s adverse action, and then the

burden shifts to the employer to establish that it would 

have taken the same action without regard to the employee’s military service. Sheehan, 240 F.3d at 1013. 

Hayden argued that the agency retaliated against him 

for seeking assistance with the ESGR to enforce his 

USERRA rights. The Board found that Hayden failed to 

present any evidence “that the agency bore any discriminatory animus towards him and he thus failed to meet his 

initial burden of proof.” Final Decision, 2014 WL 

6879135, at ¶ 33. To the contrary, the agency presented 

evidence that it did not need additional GS-12 Protocol 

Officers at the time, and that Hayden’s supervisors “were 

concerned about helping him overcome a decline in his 

performance and prepare for eventual promotion to GS12.” Id. 

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 20 Filed: 02/12/2016
HAYDEN v. AIR FORCE 21

On appeal, Hayden argues that the Board’s retaliation analysis contradicts its finding that there was evidence the agency improperly considered his military 

service and that there was “animus based on his military 

service.” Pet’r Br. 34. But Hayden attempts to equate 

discrimination based on his military service—which is the 

basis for his first claim—with retaliation based on his 

attempt to enforce his USERRA rights. Although the two 

claims utilize the same standard, they stem from different 

events. Importantly, Hayden’s retaliation claim is that 

his consultation with the ESGR about his USERRA rights

after his return from military service prompted an immediate negative performance evaluation. The Board found, 

however, that Hayden “admitted at the hearing that the 

concerns [about his performance] did not lack foundation.” 

Final Decision, 2014 WL 6879135, at ¶ 7. The Board 

further found that Hayden’s “performance suffered after 

his return, which the agency documented.” Id. at ¶ 31. 

Given these factfindings, substantial evidence supports 

the Board’s conclusion that Hayden failed to meet his 

burden with respect to retaliation. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Board 

that Hayden failed to meet his burden of proof with 

respect to his reemployment and retaliation claims under 

USERRA. With respect to his claim of discrimination 

based on military service, however, we vacate the Board’s 

decision and remand for further factfinding.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, 

REMANDED

Case: 15-3073 Document: 39-2 Page: 21 Filed: 02/12/2016