Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-02246/USCOURTS-ca13-23-02246-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Navy
Respondent
Gian Carlo Duri
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

GIAN DURI,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Respondent

______________________

2023-2246

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0432-22-0438-I-1.

______________________

Decided: January 16, 2025

______________________

GIAN CARLO DURI, Pacific Grove, CA, pro se. 

 DELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ALBERT S. IAROSSI, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________

Before DYK, PROST, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 01/16/2025
2 DURI v. NAVY

PER CURIAM.

Gian C. Duri has petitioned for review of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) decision affirming 

the Department of the Navy’s (“agency”) performancebased removal of Mr. Duri. Duri v. Dep’t of the Navy, 

No. SF-0432-22-0438-I-1, 2023 WL 3440813 (M.S.P.B. May 

8, 2023) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Duri was a General Engineer, GS-0801-11, at the 

Naval Postgraduate School (“NPS”) in Monterey, 

California. A GS-0801-11 General Engineer at NPS 

“serve[s] as staff advisor to the NPS Director of Facilities 

on problems of facilities management” and “is concerned 

with the planning, analysis, and improvement of 

integrated facility control systems.” ECF No. 56-41 at 3. 

In the 2016 rating year, Mr. Duri received an “acceptable” 

rating on his annual performance plan and comments 

related to areas of needed improvement. In the 2017

midyear-progress review, Mr. Duri’s rater expressed 

concerns about Mr. Duri’s work quality, time spent away, 

and time spent conducting personal business at work. 

Later, Mr. Duri’s rater moved to a different position, 

leaving a supervisor vacancy; and in July 2017, Mr. Duri’s 

position was realigned to provide him with a facilitiesmanagement supervisor. The new supervisor completed 

Mr. Duri’s annual assessment on November 6, 2017, and 

rated his overall performance as unacceptable. Decision, 

2023 WL 3440813.

Mr. Duri disputed his 2017 rating and requested to be 

transferred. After continued conversations and disputes 

between Mr. Duri and his supervisor regarding Mr. Duri’s 

assignments and unacceptable work performance, 

Mr. Duri was given a Notification of Unacceptable 

Performance and Opportunity to Improve Plan (“PIP”) on 

April 13, 2018. Sixty days from issuance, the PIP required

Mr. Duri to complete Access database training courses; 

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 01/16/2025
DURI v. NAVY 3

“produce an acceptable checklist to be used during . . . 

inspections”; produce an Access database that is “up and 

running” with incorporated checklists; conduct 

“40 completed inspections per week”; and “keep [the 

Director] and the Deputy Facilities Manager apprised of 

any issues . . . identified and the corrective actions . . . to 

take.” ECF No. 56-11 at 1–4 (PIP).

1 After the PIP period, 

the supervisor decided that Mr. Duri’s performance 

warranted removal from federal service because he had 

failed to (a) correctly use the checklists to conduct 

inventories and complete the 40 inspections per week; 

(b) complete additional Access training; (c) appropriately 

format the inspection database; (d) properly utilize and 

input data into an Access database; and (e) take action to 

resolve identified discrepancies. ECF No. 56-6 at 1–3

(Proposed Removal from Federal Service). After a dispute 

before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

Mr. Duri filed an appeal to the MSPB challenging the 

Office of Personnel Management’s approval of the agency’s 

performance appraisal system, the communication and 

validity of performance standards, whether there was a

reasonable opportunity to improve, and whether the

agency discriminated and retaliated against him. Though 

untimely, the MSPB administrative judge (“AJ”) found that

good cause existed and referred the appeal to the Mediation 

Appeals Program (“MAP”). The mediator released the 

appeal from MAP without a settlement, and Mr. Duri 

withdrew his request for a hearing. Based on the written 

submissions, the AJ affirmed the agency’s removal action. 

1 The parties dispute which day the PIP began. 

ECF 53-2 at 20 (“Actually, the PIP started on April 18

. . . .”); id. at 24 (“But the PIP started on Monday, 16 April

. . . .”); ECF 42-1 at 7 (“The PIP started on April 15, 2018 . 

. . .”).

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 01/16/2025
4 DURI v. NAVY

Because Mr. Duri did not petition for review with the 

MSPB, the AJ’s decision became final on June 12, 2023. 

Mr. Duri timely petitioned for review, and this court 

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

DISCUSSION

In review of MSPB final decisions, we are required to 

affirm the decision unless “any agency action, findings, or 

conclusions [are] found 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). “The petitioner 

bears the burden of establishing error in the [MSPB]’s 

decision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 

1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Mr. Duri argues that he should not have been 

terminated because (1) the agency did not measure his 

work as of PIP day 60 and proposed his removal before 

training occurred; (2) the AJ dismissed evidence; and 

(3) Mr. Duri’s performance plan’s critical element was 

unachievable. We disagree and address each of Mr. Duri’s 

arguments in turn.

I

We first address Mr. Duri’s argument that the agency 

removed him without considering his work as of PIP

day 60. Specifically, Mr. Duri argues that the agency was 

required to wait 60 days after issuing the PIP before remeasuring his work and making a termination decision. 

The AJ found that the “PIP was issued on April 13, 2018, 

and scheduled for 60 days. It began on April 15, 2018, and 

ended on June 13, 2018.” Decision, 2023 WL 3440813. 

Mr. Duri, however, contends that the PIP started on 

April 16, 2018, or alternatively, should have begun 

April 18, 2018. ECF 53-2 at 20, 24.

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 01/16/2025
DURI v. NAVY 5

Even assuming that the PIP started on April 16 or 18, 

2018, and ended on June 14 or 16, 2018, Mr. Duri has not 

shown that he completed all of his required PIP objectives

by June 16. Indeed, he admits he did not complete the 

required training program prescribed in the PIP. 

Specifically, Mr. Duri concedes that “my failing to learn 

Access on my own was one of the major justifications for 

initiating the PIP and for proposing I be removed from NPS 

employment. That was also one of the major reasons the 

President agreed to remove me from employment.” Id.

at 15–16.

While Mr. Duri attempts to transform this failure to 

complete the required training into an MSPB error, we 

disagree the MSPB erred. See id. at 11 (alleging the AJ 

“erroneously claimed [that Mr. Duri] should have looked for 

outside training sources” but that Mr. Duri was not asked 

or funded to do so). The AJ found that the “performance 

plan told [Mr. Duri] what he needed to be trained in and 

when to complete it.” Decision, 2023 WL 3440813. 

Mr. Duri’s performance plan “included instructions to 

procure training,” and “there was nothing improper with 

including training as part of the performance plan.” Id. 

The AJ found that Mr. Duri’s supervisor “adhered to the 

policy by assessing the training needs, giving information 

to [Mr. Duri], and directing him to arrange the details in a 

manner that worked for him.” Id. And given that Mr. Duri 

was a GS-11 professional, he “could reasonably be expected 

to find and complete the exact course or courses to increase 

his proficiency.” Id. The AJ also found that “there was a 

significant amount of training available. Training in 

Access was available to NPS employees in 2018 through 

both online computer courses and outside contractors. 

Online courses would have been sufficient to learn enough 

to create simple or moderately complex databases.” Id.

(cleaned up). 

Accordingly, the AJ found (and Mr. Duri admits) that 

he did not complete the training as required by the PIP,

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 01/16/2025
6 DURI v. NAVY

whether by June 13, 14, or 16, 2018; and substantial 

evidence supports the AJ’s findings that Mr. Duri did not 

meet these PIP requirements.

II

We now turn to Mr. Duri’s argument that the AJ 

dismissed some evidence during discovery. Specifically, 

Mr. Duri alleges that “[t]he [a]gency failed to provide the 

two binders” which contained his work. ECF 53-2 at 20–

21. But Mr. Duri does not argue or demonstrate how such 

evidence would overcome the AJ’s factual determinations. 

See Harris, 142 F.3d at 1467 (“The petitioner bears the 

burden of establishing error in the [MSPB]’s decision.”). 

Additionally, the AJ reviewed “in its entirety” a voluminous 

record including nearly 5000 pages.

2 Decision, 2023 WL 

3440813, n.1. Without explanation of why these two 

binders would overcome the evidence on record, we 

conclude that substantial evidence supports the AJ’s 

factual findings.

III

Finally, Mr. Duri argues that his performance plan’s 

critical element was “ambiguous, ambitious, and 

unachievable.” ECF 53-1 at 2; see also ECF 53-2 at 10 (“My 

supervisor had established unachievable deadlines.”); id.

at 15; id. at 18. In Mr. Duri’s view, his “supervisor failed to 

2 The AJ found the appeal file “voluminous, 

including, by [his] calculations, an agency file of 1792 

pages, agency close of record submissions of 987 pages, and 

appellant close of record submissions of 2034 

pages. Despite the volume, the record is highly 

redundant. [The AJ] ha[s] reviewed the record in its 

entirety.” Decision, 2023 WL 3440813, n.1 (citations 

omitted).

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 01/16/2025
DURI v. NAVY 7

revise the unachievable . . . initial deadlines and failed [Mr. 

Duri] for missing those deadlines.” ECF 53-1 at 2.

“[E]ach [agency] performance appraisal system shall 

provide for—(1) establishing performance standards which 

will . . . permit the accurate evaluation of job performance 

on the basis of objective criteria”; (2) “communicating to 

each employee the performance standards and the critical 

elements of the employee’s position; (3) evaluating each 

employee during the appraisal period on such standards;”

(4) “rewarding employees whose performance so warrants; 

(5) assisting employees in improving unacceptable 

performance; and (6) reassigning, reducing in grade, or 

removing employees who continue to have unacceptable 

performance but only after an opportunity to demonstrate 

acceptable performance.” 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c).

Here, the AJ disagreed with Mr. Duri’s arguments and 

found that the critical element of conducting “space 

inventories is consistent with the appellant’s position 

description. The position description provides that 40% of 

the incumbent’s duties involve providing information to

management to make decisions on facilities allocations, 

including executing ‘a detailed process for auditing space 

utilization across campus’ and conducting ‘space 

inventories of the academic facilities,’” with “[a]nother 40% 

of the job involving investigating and evaluating space 

allocation factors.” Decision, 2023 WL 3440813 (cleaned 

up) (citing ECF No. 56-41 at 4). On the evidence of record, 

the AJ found that the alleged ambiguity claimed by 

Mr. Duri was persistent disagreement with the standards 

of his supervisor’s instructions. “In context[,] it was 

sufficiently clear what an inspection was, what a space 

was, and what a database was,” and the AJ concluded that 

“the standards were sufficiently objective.” Id. 

Furthermore, the AJ found that “the standards established 

in the PIP were realistic and attainable.” Id. Based on Mr. 

Duri’s experience and his supervisor’s testimony, Mr. Duri 

“should have been able to develop a checklist in eight 

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 7 Filed: 01/16/2025
8 DURI v. NAVY

hours, create a schedule in one hour, and do 10–20 

inspections per day.” Id. Therefore, it would have been 

“very reasonable” to complete 40 inspections per week, 

given the duration of a single inspection to not take more 

than 10–15 minutes. Id. Again, substantial evidence

supports the AJ’s findings.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Duri’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-2246 Document: 65 Page: 8 Filed: 01/16/2025