Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03057/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hamdy Alex Abou-Hussein
Petitioner
Department of the Navy
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HAMDY ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3057

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-13-6851-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 11, 2016 

______________________ 

HAMDY ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN, North Charleston, SC, 

pro se.

RUSSELL JAMES UPTON, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-3057 Document: 38-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2016
2 ABOU-HUSSEIN v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Hamdy Alex Abou-Hussein appeals a final 

decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), 

which affirmed the Department of the Navy’s (“Navy”) 

decision to remove him from his post. See Hamdy A. 

Abou-Hussein v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. AT-0752-13-6851-

I-1 (Nov. 5, 2014) (Final Order) (Resp’t’s App. 1–10); 

Hamdy A. Abou-Hussein v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. AT0752-13-6851-I-1 (Mar. 18, 2014) (Initial Decision) 

(Resp’t’s App. 13–19). For the reasons set forth below, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Abou-Hussein served as a Mechanical Engineer 

at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in 

Charleston, South Carolina. In 2013 the Navy removed 

him from his post, citing “misconduct.” Resp’t’s App. 107, 

111. Mr. Abou-Hussein challenged the removal before the 

MSPB. 

In an Initial Decision, an MSPB administrative judge 

(“AJ”) found the Navy had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Abou-Hussein had engaged 

in disrespectful conduct toward his supervisor, failed to 

carry out his supervisor’s instructions to complete certain 

paperwork and travel outside the United States as part of 

his job, and “failed to cooperate in a pre-action investigative discussion” with his second-level supervisor, Michael 

Johnson. Id. at 15–16. The AJ further found Mr. AbouHussein failed to establish the Navy retaliated against 

him for whistleblowing, noting “he failed to submit any 

evidence” to support such a claim. Id. at 17. 

In addition, the AJ found the removal promoted the 

efficiency of the service and constituted a reasonable 

Case: 15-3057 Document: 38-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2016
ABOU-HUSSEIN v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY 3

penalty under the circumstances. Those circumstances 

included that Mr. Abou-Hussein: (1) “intentionally failed 

to perform duties of his position”; (2) “provided no excuse 

for his refusal to travel abroad”; and (3) had previously 

been reprimanded and suspended based on workplace 

behavior. Id. at 19. Mr. Abou-Hussein petitioned the 

MSPB for review of the AJ’s Initial Decision, and a threemember panel of the MSPB affirmed, issuing a Final 

Order that declared the AJ’s Initial Decision to be the 

MSPB’s final decision. Mr. Abou-Hussein timely appeals. 

This court has jurisdiction over final decisions of the 

MSPB under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2012). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

When reviewing final decisions of the MSPB, “th[is] 

court shall review the record and hold unlawful and set 

aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions” that are 

“(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). We review the MSPB’s 

legal determinations de novo. Welshans v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., 550 F.3d 1100, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

II. The MSPB’s Final Decision Affirming the Navy’s 

Removal of Mr. Abou-Hussein Was Supported by Substantial Evidence

In the Initial Decision (which became the MSPB’s final decision), the AJ considered the Navy’s allegations of 

Mr. Abou-Hussein’s misconduct and found they were 

supported by “preponderant evidence.” Resp’t’s App. 14. 

The AJ addressed the evidence at length, finding Mr. 

Abou-Hussein “did not offer any evidence to refute the 

[Navy’s] accounts of his behavior.” Id. at 16. The AJ 

Case: 15-3057 Document: 38-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/11/2016
4 ABOU-HUSSEIN v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY

discussed, among other things, declaration testimony of 

Mr. Abou-Hussein’s supervisor Ray E. Gay and his second 

level supervisor Michael Johnson with respect to Mr. 

Abou-Hussein’s uncooperative behavior, failure to follow 

instructions, and disrespectful conduct. The AJ also 

noted testimony of the Navy’s deciding official, Commander Gary L. Morris, who described Mr. AbouHussein’s record of previous similar offenses and lack of 

behavioral improvement following an earlier fourteen-day 

suspension. 

On appeal to this court, Mr. Abou-Hussein does not 

challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his 

removal, nor does he assert that removal was an unreasonable remedy that was disproportionate to his misconduct. See, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 7 (stating “[t]he case is about 

whether the Navy’s pre-removal retaliatory conduct is

discoverable when a Federal employee [i.e., Mr. AbouHussein] is on a terrorist watch list despite the fact 

that . . . his security clearance” was not revoked), 16 

(asserting “the AJ acted in retaliation” against Mr. AbouHussein (capitalization omitted)), 18 (arguing Mr. AbouHussein’s “right to discovery” in light of his asserted 

status as a whistleblower (capitalization omitted)). 

Because Mr. Abou-Hussein does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and in light of the testimony of 

Messrs. Gay, Johnson, and Morris, we conclude the AJ’s 

decision to affirm the Navy’s removal of Mr. AbouHussein was “supported by such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion, i.e., substantial evidence.” Gallagher v. Dep’t 

of the Treasury, 274 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We

further conclude the MSBP did not abuse its discretion in 

determining the Navy’s action in removing Mr. AbouHussein was reasonable. 

Case: 15-3057 Document: 38-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/11/2016
ABOU-HUSSEIN v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY 5

III. Mr. Abou-Hussein’s Assertions of Error

Mr. Abou-Hussein makes several assertions of error. 

First, he asserts he was improperly denied a hearing 

when, after he failed to appear for a hearing on December 

2, 2013, the AJ rejected his request to reschedule and 

instead “decided [the appeal] based upon the documentary

submissions of the parties.” Resp’t’s App. 38. Mr. AbouHussein explains he “[notified] the AJ five (5) days before 

the scheduled hearing,” which was to take place in 

Charleston, South Carolina, “that [a] snow blizzard and 

snow accumulation is preventing him from driving down 

the mountains” near Hendersonville, North Carolina, 

where he was “stranded.” Pet’r’s Br. 16; see also id. at 11–

12; Reply Br. 3–4. He further notes that “when the snow 

partially melted and rural roads became passable, [he] 

chose to attempt to reach the much nearer Atlanta Regional Office to prove by his appearance that he is not 

foregoing his due process right to a hearing.” Id. at 16. 

A motion for postponement will be granted “only upon 

a showing of good cause.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.51 (2015). 

Here, after Mr. Abou-Hussein failed to appear, the AJ 

issued a show cause order. She considered his assertions 

with respect to the inclement weather but concluded he 

had “failed to establish good cause for his absence,” 

Resp’t’s App. 13, because, “given his representation that 

on the day of the hearing, he appeared in Atlanta for the 

hearing, the weather obviously did not affect his ability to 

travel,” id. at 38.1 The AJ’s denial of Mr. Abou-Hussein’s 

request to reschedule therefore was not arbitrary, and 

 

1 She further noted Mr. Abou-Hussein’s motion to 

postpone was filed “on November 27, the eve of Thanksgiving,” and that she “did not receive a copy of the motion” 

until she arrived “at the hearing site on the day of the 

hearing.” Id. at 37.

Case: 15-3057 Document: 38-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/11/2016
6 ABOU-HUSSEIN v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY

affirmance of the AJ’s decision by the MSPB panel did not 

constitute an abuse of discretion. 

Mr. Abou-Hussein also asserts the AJ was biased and 

should have been disqualified because her “office was 

subject to an investigation by its own Inspector General” 

as a result of “[Mr.] Abou-Hussein’s 2011 complaint.” 

Pet’r’s Br. 17; see Pet’r’s App. 55 (letter from the MSPB 

Office of the General Counsel to Mr. Abou-Hussein, 

addressing his allegations that the MSPB engaged in 

“spoliation of evidence of Criminal Assault on [Mr. AbouHussein’s] person” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

As this court has explained, 

“opinions formed by [a] judge on the basis of facts 

introduced or events occurring in the course of the 

current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do 

not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism 

or antagonism that would make fair judgment 

impossible.” 

Bieber v. Dep’t of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 

2002) (alterations omitted) (emphasis removed) (quoting 

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The 

MSPB considered this standard and concluded Mr. AbouHussein had not made such a showing. 

On appeal to this court, Mr. Abou-Hussein makes a 

similar argument, asserting deep-seated antagonism was 

created by “the earlier spoliated audio in the past [prehearing conference] controversy,” in “which the same AJ 

dismissed [Mr.] Abou-Hussein’s . . . appeal.” Pet’r’s Br. 9; 

see also id. at 17 (asserting “the [MSPB] missed its own 

binding regulations as they apply to the disqualification of 

an [AJ] whose office was subject to an investigation by its 

own Inspector General”). He explains that during that 

pre-hearing conference, which occurred in 2010 and which 

was related to a previous action that is not directly a part 

Case: 15-3057 Document: 38-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/11/2016
ABOU-HUSSEIN v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY 7

of the present appeal, “the Navy attorney approving 

[certain allegedly] fraudulent subcontracts . . . made a 

death threat [against Mr. Abou-Hussein], and the Atlanta

[MSPB] Judges erased six (6) minutes of audio recorded 

by their phone conferencing system.” Id. at 14. In the 

present proceeding, the full panel of the MSPB considered 

Mr. Abou-Hussein’s assertion of bias and concluded he 

“ha[d] not shown that the [AJ] committed an error or

otherwise abused her discretion.” Resp’t’s App. 7.

Although Mr. Abou-Hussein points to his role in 

bringing about the “MSPB [Inspector General’s] investigation of the AJ Atlanta office,” Pet’r’s Br. 17, he does not 

identify any record evidence demonstrating the “‘opinions 

formed by the judge,’” in this case by the AJ, “‘display a 

deep-seated . . . antagonism.’” Bieber, 287 F.3d at 1362 

(alteration omitted) (emphasis modified) (quoting Liteky, 

510 U.S. at 555). Although he notes the AJ’s dismissal of 

his previous appeal, a dismissal without more does not 

suggest antagonism.

Mr. Abou-Hussein further asserts “the [MSPB] ignored his motion” for recusal of the AJ, and that the 

“Initial Decision is premature until all outstanding motions are resolved.” Pet’r’s Br. 18. Given Mr. AbouHussein’s acknowledgement that the “AJ[] deni[ed] . . . 

the motion,” id., we see no basis for his assertion that the 

motion had not been resolved at the time of the Initial 

Decision. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Abou-Hussein’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

is

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3057 Document: 38-2 Page: 7 Filed: 02/11/2016