Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03206/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03206-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Air Force
Respondent
Jason Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JASON SMITH,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3206

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. SF-0752-13-1253-I-1, SF-0752-14-0283-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 13, 2016

______________________ 

JASON SMITH, Woodbridge, VA, pro se.

ALEXIS J. ECHOLS, 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 MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Case: 15-3206 Document: 16-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2016
2 SMITH v. AIR FORCE

Jason Smith appeals the Merit Systems Protection 

Board’s (“Board”) decision that affirmed the decision by 

the Department of the Air Force (“Air Force”) to furlough 

him for six days in July and August 2013 as a result of 

the sequestration legislation. Because we find no reversible error in the Board’s decision, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

This case is one of many that arise from the sequestration legislation (i.e., the Budget Control Act of 2011

and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012) adopted by 

Congress. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n Fed. Emps., Local 1442 v. 

Dep’t of the Army, Nos. 2014-3175, 2014-3189, 2015 WL 

6143247, at *1–2 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2015) (“NFFE”); 

Einboden v. Dep’t of the Navy, 802 F.3d 1321, 1323 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015). As a result of this legislation, the Department 

of Defense’s (“DOD”) yearly budget was cut by $37 billion 

approximately halfway through Fiscal Year 2013. Knowing that its budget would be cut significantly, the DOD 

took a number of steps to respond to the sequestration. 

One such step involved notifying most of the DOD’s 

civilian personnel of the possibility of furloughs. In a May 

2013 memorandum, the Secretary of Defense explained 

that more than $30 billion of the total $37 billion cut

would be to operation and maintenance accounts that pay 

many, but not all, of the DOD’s civilian workers. The 

memorandum also explained that furloughs of civilian 

workers would be imposed in every military department, 

with only limited exceptions for civilians deployed in 

combat zones, necessary to protect life and property, or 

excepted for specific mission reasons. While the DOD 

originally expected to furlough civilian employees for up 

to eleven days, it was able to reduce this number of days 

to six after Congress approved a large reprogramming 

request DOD made earlier that year, which gave the DOD

flexibility to move funds across accounts. 

Mr. Smith is a civilian employee at the Space and 

Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, and 

Case: 15-3206 Document: 16-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2016
SMITH v. AIR FORCE 3

his salary is paid from the Air Force’s Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation program (“RDT&E” or 

“Program”). Of the sixteen appropriations that fund the 

Air Force, thirteen were directly impacted by the sequestration, including both the RDT&E program and Operations and Maintenance. Mr. Smith was provided notice of 

the furloughs and ultimately was furloughed for six days. 

Mr. Smith filed a timely notice of appeal with the Board, 

alleging that he was improperly furloughed for several 

reasons. The Board consolidated his case with several 

others, and, after a hearing, determined that the Air 

Force had shown there was cause for the furloughs and 

that the furloughs promoted the efficiency of the service. 

Specifically, the Board determined that the Air Force met 

its burden by showing that the furloughs were a reasonable management solution to the financial restrictions it 

faced and that it determined which employees to furlough 

in a fair and even manner. Mr. Smith timely appeals. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decisions is limited by statute. We may set aside the Board’s decision only if we find 

it 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); see also Einboden, 802 F.3d 

at 1324. An agency, such as the DOD, may furlough an 

employee for lack of work or funds or for other nondisciplinary reasons. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511(a)(5), 7512(5); 

NFFE, 2015 WL 6143247, at *4. Because furloughs of 

thirty days or less are adverse actions, an agency can only 

take such action if it “will promote the efficiency of the 

service.” NFFE, 2015 WL 6143247, at *4 (quoting 5 

U.S.C. § 7513(a)). The “‘efficiency of the service’ standard 

in a furlough case is satisfied by the agency demonstrating ‘that the furlough was a reasonable management 

solution to the financial restrictions placed on it and that 

Case: 15-3206 Document: 16-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2016
4 SMITH v. AIR FORCE

the agency applied its determination as to which employees to furlough in a ‘fair and even manner.’’” Id. (quoting 

Chandler v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 120 M.S.P.R. 163, 171 

(2013)).

The Board determined that the Air Force met its burden of establishing that Mr. Smith’s furlough promoted 

the efficiency of the service. Noting that agencies have 

broad discretion to take action to avoid deficits, the Board 

found that the Air Force showed that the DOD had to 

make significant budgetary cuts as a result of the sequestration legislation to avoid a deficit. It also found that the 

DOD’s response was a reasonable management solution to 

the financial restrictions and that the DOD decided which 

employees to furlough in a fair and even manner. We see 

no reversible error in the Board’s analysis.

On appeal, Mr. Smith argues that his furlough notice 

only discussed a shortage of funds in Operations and 

Maintenance funds—not the RDT&E program funds from 

which he was paid. He argues that, while the Air Force 

could “reprogram” funds from one RDT&E program 

element to another program element on its own, any 

transfer of funds from an RDT&E account requires Congressional approval. Thus, Mr. Smith argues that because his furlough notice only identified shortages in 

Operations and Maintenance accounts and the Air Force 

did not request Congressional approval to transfer funds 

from the specific RDT&E program account that paid his 

salary, the Air Force failed to establish any need for these 

funds. 

Mr. Smith’s argument fails. The Air Force, like the 

Department of the Army, “operates under the authority, 

direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense.” 10 

U.S.C. § 8011; see NFFE, 2015 WL 6143247, at *7 (citing 

10 U.S.C. § 3011). And, similar to the Secretary of the 

Army, the Secretary of the Air Force is responsible for 

“the effective and timely implementation of policy, program, and budget decisions and instructions of the PresiCase: 15-3206 Document: 16-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2016
SMITH v. AIR FORCE 5

dent or the Secretary of Defense relating to the functions 

of the Department of the Air Force.” 10 U.S.C. 

§ 8013(c)(3); see NFFE, 2015 WL 6143247, at *7 (citing 10 

U.S.C. § 3013(c)(3)). Thus, as explained in NFFE, it was 

reasonable for the DOD to consider its budget holistically 

when faced with sequestration, rather than isolating 

components—or, as here, accounts—of a military department. 2015 WL 6143247, at *7. 

Mr. Smith’s argument that the Air Force neither reprogrammed nor requested transfer of funds similarly 

fails. First, as the Board explained, the DOD did submit 

a request to Congress to reprogram funds—a request that 

Congress approved. The fact that the DOD ultimately did 

not need to reprogram funds out of the specific program 

that paid Mr. Smith’s salary does not matter here. In 

Einboden, we held that a military department organized 

under the DOD is not required to show actual reprogramming of funds saved by the furlough in order to prove 

that the “efficiency of the service” standard is met. 802 

F.3d at 1325. Rather, we explained that we “give wide 

berth to agency decisions as to what type of adverse 

action is necessary to ‘promote the efficiency of the service,’ provided that the agency’s decision bears some 

nexus to the reason for the adverse action.” Id. at 1325–

26. Here, as in Einboden, that nexus requirement is met. 

The DOD was faced with an agency-wide funding shortfall. As part of the measures to adapt to this shortfall, the 

DOD implemented agency-wide furloughs of civilian 

employees with only limited exceptions, which the DOD 

estimated would save it about $2 billion. S.A. 2. 

Mr. Smith has not shown that the Air Force’s decision 

to furlough him was unreasonable. He argues this decision was unreasonable because it was based on a concern 

for fairness and equity, not because the RDT&E program

lacked funds. Specifically, he alleges that Air Force 

commanders testified that they did not want to furlough 

employees paid with Operations and Maintenance funds 

while employees paid with RDT&E program funds were 

Case: 15-3206 Document: 16-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2016
6 SMITH v. AIR FORCE

still able to work. In order to meet the “efficiency of the 

service” standard, an agency must show that it applied its 

determination as to which employees to furlough in a fair 

and even manner in addition to showing that the furlough 

was a reasonable management solution to the financial 

restriction placed on it. NFFE, 2015 WL 6143247, at *4. 

As the Board recognized, the Air Force offered evidence 

that it applied the furloughs uniformly to all civilian 

employees, with only a limited set of exemptions. S.A. 5. 

The Air Force commanders’ testimony supports the 

Board’s finding. 

 Finally, Mr. Smith argues that the Air Force failed 

to include relevant documents in the administrative 

record and that the Board erred in denying his motion to 

compel responses to some of his discovery requests. 

“Procedural matters relative to discovery and evidentiary 

issues fall within the sound discretion of the board and its 

officials.” Curtin v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 846 F.2d 

1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We “will not overturn the 

board on such matters unless an abuse of discretion is 

clear and is harmful.” Id. Mr. Smith does not show how 

the Board’s denial of his motion to compel certain documents and information resulted in a clear and harmful 

abuse of discretion. And we discern no clear or harmful 

abuse of discretion on our own review of the record. We 

have considered Mr. Smith’s remaining arguments and 

they are without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Board 

is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-3206 Document: 16-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2016