Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02096/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Army
Respondent
Roberta A. Lee
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ROBERTA A. LEE,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

______________________

2024-2096

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-0752-18-0161-I-1.

______________________

Decided: January 17, 2025

______________________

ROBERTA A. LEE, Leavenworth, KS, pro se. 

 ANNE DELMARE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________

Before REYNA, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2025
2 LEE v. ARMY

Roberta A. Lee appeals pro se a final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board, which affirmed the 

agency’s charge of insubordination and penalty of removal. 

Ms. Lee had 60 days from the date of the Board’s decision, 

or the Board’s notice of the final order, to file a petition of 

review to this court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). The Supreme 

Court recently decided that this 60-day filing deadline is 

non-jurisdictional. Harrow v. Dep’t of Def., 601 U.S. 480, 

489–90 (2024). The Court, however, declined to decide 

whether the 60-day filing deadline is subject to equitable 

tolling. Id. 

The government argues that we must dismiss Ms. Lee’s 

appeal because she filed it six days past the 60-day deadline. Respondent’s Br. 7–8. The government also argues 

the 60-day filing deadline is not subject to equitable tolling 

and that, in any event, Ms. Lee would not be entitled to equitable tolling. Id. We do not reach these issues because 

we find that the Board did not err on the merits. Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, we affirm the 

Board’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

At the time of her removal, Ms. Lee served as a Supervisory Visual Information Specialist, GS-1084-11, in the 

Visual Information Branch’s Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization and Security, within the Department of 

the Army, at Fort Riley, Kansas. SAppx6.1 The relevant 

facts for this appeal surround Ms. Lee’s failure to attend a 

December 5, 2017 meeting with her supervisor, Ms. Randi 

Hamden. Id.

On the morning of December 5, 2017, Ms. Hamden sent 

an email to Ms. Lee directing Ms. Lee to meet with her that 

day. SAppx7. Shortly thereafter, agency counsel and Ms. 

1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix accompanying the government’s informal response brief.

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2025
LEE v. ARMY 3

Lee’s Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) representative, Ms. Janice Jackson, became involved in the email exchanges between Ms. Hamden and Ms. Lee. Appx11–14.2 

Ms. Jackson was Ms. Lee’s representative in a pending discrimination complaint against a separate supervisor at the 

agency. Appx7–8. 

Ms. Lee requested to know the purpose of this meeting. 

SAppx7; Appx12. Ms. Lee also noted in a separate email 

that Ms. Jackson “will [need to] be present.” Appx13. The 

agency clarified that “this meeting is unrelated to Ms. Lee’s 

pending EEO complaint,” that Ms. Jackson could not attend the meeting, and that “[m]anagement expects to meet 

with Ms. Lee at Building 319 at 1300 [i.e., 1 pm] this afternoon.” Id. 

Ms. Lee did not attend the meeting at 1 pm on December 5, 2017. SAppx7; Appx15. Later that afternoon, the 

agency placed Ms. Lee on administrative leave. SAppx9.

On December 19, 2017, the agency issued a notice of 

proposed removal for the charge of insubordination, and in 

the alternative, a charge of conduct unbecoming of a federal employee. SAppx6. Ms. Lee responded to this notice. 

SAppx1.

On January 18, 2018, the agency issued a notice of decision of the proposed removal, which sustained both 

charges. SAppx2. The agency supported its removal determination by analyzing the relevant factors discussed in 

Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305–

06 (1981), i.e., the “Douglas factors.” SAppx3–4. Ms. Lee’s 

2 As used herein, “Appx” refers to the appendix accompanying Ms. Lee’s Informal Brief, which is docketed at 

ECF No. 4, and the cited pages correspond to the page numbering as docketed at ECF No. 4.

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 01/17/2025
4 LEE v. ARMY

removal from service became effective on January 20, 2018. 

SAppx4. 

Ms. Lee appealed the agency’s removal action to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or the “Board”). 

The administrative judge (“AJ”) assigned to Ms. Lee’s appeal issued an initial decision, which affirmed the agency’s 

charge of insubordination and penalty of removal.3

As to the insubordination charge determination, the AJ 

determined that Ms. Lee was insubordinate by failing to 

attend the December 5, 2017 meeting. The AJ rejected Ms. 

Lee’s argument that she could not have been insubordinate

because she received no direct order to attend the meeting. 

Appx10. The AJ found that the agency clearly instructed 

Ms. Lee to attend the December 5, 2017 meeting and that 

Ms. Lee and Ms. Jackson never expressed confusion about 

that instruction. Appx14. The AJ based these findings on 

hearing testimony and the December 5, 2017 email chain 

between Ms. Lee, Ms. Jackson, Ms. Hamden, and agency 

counsel.4 

The AJ also found that the agency’s order to attend the 

December 5, 2017 meeting was lawful, despite Ms. Lee’s 

objection to attending the meeting without her EEO representative present. Appx16. The AJ found that the agency 

made clear that the meeting did not involve Ms. Lee’s discrimination complaint but, rather, was work related, and 

3 The AJ did not address the agency’s alternative 

finding of conduct unbecoming of a federal employee. 

Appx7 n.1. The AJ explained that because he sustained 

the charge of insubordination and the penalty of removal, 

addressing the unbecoming charge conduct would not 

change the result in the case. Id. 

4 The parties presented testimony before the AJ on 

October 30 and 31, 2018. SAppx14–17. 

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 01/17/2025
LEE v. ARMY 5

thus, Ms. Lee was not entitled to have her EEO representative present at the meeting. Id. 

The AJ then determined that the penalty of removal 

was appropriate. Appx22–23. The AJ reviewed the 

agency’s consideration of the relevant Douglas factors and 

agreed with the agency’s assessment that the penalty of removal was reasonable given Ms. Lee’s conduct. Id. The AJ 

agreed with the agency that Ms. Lee’s intentional failure 

to attend the meeting was serious misconduct, even if the 

failure to attend the meeting was a single event. Appx22. 

The AJ also agreed with the agency that this was especially

true given Ms. Lee’s role as supervisor. Id. (noting that 

supervisors are held to a higher standard of conduct when 

analyzing the appropriate penalty). The AJ then agreed 

with the agency that Ms. Lee’s December 5th email responses and written response indicated Ms. Lee’s lack of 

rehabilitative potential and loss of needed supervisory confidence. Appx23. 

Ms. Lee filed a petition for review of the AJ’s initial decision before the full Board, which denied her petition and 

affirmed the AJ’s initial decision. Appx34–36. The Board 

also modified the AJ’s initial decision in one limited respect. Appx35. The Board addressed one of Ms. Lee’s due 

process arguments that the AJ did not specifically address, 

i.e., that the agency violated her due process rights by considering certain adverse penalty factors without affording 

her prior notice and an opportunity to respond. Id. The 

Board determined that there was no due process violation 

and that Ms. Lee had notice and opportunity to respond to 

the evidence presented by the agency. Appx35–36. 

Ms. Lee filed a petition for review of the Board’s final 

decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 01/17/2025
6 LEE v. ARMY

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find 

that 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). “Substantial evidence is such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Higgins v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 

955 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Ms. Lee raises four arguments on appeal. We address 

them in turn. 

First, Ms. Lee argues that both the AJ and the Board 

overlooked points she raised before them. Petitioner’s Informal Br. 2. Ms. Lee specifically argues that the AJ “overlooked [her] entire closing brief,” and that the Board 

overlooked “the Judge’s abuse of authority” and Ms. Lee’s 

“due process rights.” Id. We reject Ms. Lee’s argument as 

vague and unsupported. Ms. Lee fails to specifically identify any evidence demonstrating that the Board’s corresponding decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, otherwise contrary to law, or unsupported by 

substantial evidence. 

Second, Ms. Lee argues that “[t]he Agency did not 

prove that an order was given” for Ms. Lee to attend the 

December 5, 2017 meeting, and, thus Ms. Lee was not insubordinate by failing to attend the meeting. Petitioner’s

Informal Br. 2. The record, however, shows otherwise. 

Based on substantial evidence, including hearing testimony and a lengthy email exchange between Ms. Lee, Ms.

Jackson, Ms. Hamden, and agency counsel, the AJ found 

that the agency gave a clear order to Ms. Lee to attend the 

December 5, 2017 meeting. Appx10–16. For this reason, 

we see no error in the AJ’s determination, and the Board’s 

affirmance, that Ms. Lee was insubordinate. 

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 6 Filed: 01/17/2025
LEE v. ARMY 7

Third, Ms. Lee argues that the penalty of removal was 

unwarranted because the agency failed to seek an alternative penalty. Petitioner’s Informal Br. 2. We disagree. The 

agency has no requirement to seek an alternative penalty

before settling on the penalty of removal. Rather, the 

agency must assess a penalty that is reasonable in relation 

to the misconduct at issue. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 

534 U.S. 1, 5 (2001). The agency assesses the reasonableness of the penalty by considering and weighing the various Douglas factors. Here, the agency determined, based 

on the Douglas factors, that the penalty of removal was 

reasonable. SAppx3–4. The AJ agreed with the agency, 

having reviewed the agency’s assessment of the Douglas 

factors. Appx22–23. The Board affirmed. Appx34–35. We 

see no error in these analyses. 

Finally, Ms. Lee argues that the agency failed to prove 

the charge of insubordination. Petitioner’s Informal Br. 2. 

We do not agree. Insubordination is the “willful and intentional refusal to obey an authorized order of a superior officer which the officer is entitled to have obeyed.” Mazares

v. Dep’t of Navy, 302 F.3d 1382, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Bieber v. Dep’t of Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir.

2002)). Based on substantial evidence, the AJ found that 

Ms. Lee acted insubordinately. Appx16–18. Specifically, 

the AJ determined that the agency gave Ms. Lee a lawful 

order to attend the December 5, 2017 meeting, that Ms. Lee 

disobeyed the order, and that her disobedience was willful 

and intentional. Id. We see no error in the AJ’s finding of 

insubordination. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Lee’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the 

Board’s final decision.

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 7 Filed: 01/17/2025
8 LEE v. ARMY

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-2096 Document: 23 Page: 8 Filed: 01/17/2025