Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01273/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Army
Respondent
George Heath
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GEORGE HEATH,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1273

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-14-0233-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: April 7, 2016

______________________ 

GEORGE HEATH, Wahiawa, HI, pro se.

KARA WESTERCAMP, 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 DYK, PLAGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2016
2 HEATH v. ARMY

PER CURIAM. 

George Heath petitions for review of a September 30, 

2015, decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(“MSPB” or “Board”) affirming the Department of the 

Army’s (“Army”) action removing him from federal service 

effective January 17, 2014. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

George Heath served as an animal health technician 

at the William Beaumont Army Medical Center (“Medical 

Center”) in Fort Bliss, Texas, from September 2009 to 

January 2014. Mr. Heath was responsible for serving as a 

quality control officer, fulfilling the duties of a senior 

animal health technician, and leading and performing 

oversight work involving the operation of the animal 

facility and the care of laboratory animals. 

On October 3, 2011, Mr. Heath disclosed alleged violations of procedures and falsification of data by his then 

supervisor, Major Todd Collins, to the Chairman of the 

Medical Center’s Institutional Animal Care and Use 

Committee. Mr. Heath alleged that, because he had made 

these disclosures, Major Collins informed him that he 

would no longer be allowed to perform supervisory duties. 

On September 18, 2012, Mr. Heath filed an individual 

right of action appeal seeking restoration of his supervisory duties, but the administrative judge held that Mr. 

Heath’s disclosures “were part of [his] normal duties and 

were made through normal channels” and therefore “do 

not qualify as protected disclosures under the [Whistleblower Protection Act].” Resp’t’s App’x (“App’x”) at 63. 

On September 11, 2013, the Board granted Mr. 

Heath’s petition for review and remanded to the administrative judge, because the intervening Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act clarified that disclosures 

made in the normal course of one’s duties may qualify as 

protected disclosures. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(f)(2). On JanuCase: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2016
HEATH v. ARMY 3

ary 27, 2014, the administrative judge found that the 

Army “failed to show by clear and convincing evidence 

that, absent any protected disclosures, it would have 

eliminated [Mr. Heath’s] supervisory duties.” App’x at 86. 

The administrative judge granted Mr. Heath’s request for 

corrective action and ordered the Army to, within 20 days,

“provide [Mr. Heath] with relief such that he is placed as 

nearly as possible in the same situation he would have 

been had the agency not retaliated against him for whistleblowing.” App’x at 88.

Meanwhile, Major Collins was promoted and left the 

Medical Center in June 2012. In April 2012, shortly 

before Major Collins’s departure, Staff Sergeant Prycie 

Turner (“SSG Turner”) joined the Medical Center and 

became Mr. Heath’s new supervisor. On March 15, 2013, 

SSG Turner proposed Mr. Heath’s removal for failure to 

observe orders, rules, or procedures, and failure to carry 

out assigned duties. The Army removed Mr. Heath on 

April 18, 2013, and Mr. Heath appealed to the Board, 

arguing, inter alia, that his removal, like the elimination 

of his supervisory duties, was retaliation for the alleged 

whistleblowing that occurred in 2011. On September 12, 

2013, an administrative judge rejected Mr. Heath’s affirmative defense of retaliation for whistleblowing, but set 

aside the removal because Mr. Heath was not made aware 

of or given an opportunity to respond to certain ex parte

communications made to the deciding official, Colonel 

Eric Morgan. On October 28, 2013, the Army reinstated 

Mr. Heath, and simultaneously placed him on paid administrative leave retroactive to April 18, 2013. On the 

same day, the Army instituted removal proceedings on 

the same grounds as the first removal. 

The proposed removal letter was based on: (1) “Failure to observe orders, rules, or procedures where safety to 

persons or property is endangered”; (2) “[f]ailure to observe orders, rules, or procedures where safety to persons 

or property is not endangered”; and (3) “[f]ailure to carry 

Case: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2016
4 HEATH v. ARMY

out assigned duties.” App’x at 121. Specifically, Mr. Heath 

was charged with:

• leaving work early on February 5, 2013, and 

failing, inter alia, to properly clean and disinfect animal cages and related items; 

• euthanizing animals on or around February 22, 

2013, without observing the experimental protocol or standard operating procedure; 

• arriving to work early on March 4, 2013, without notifying a supervisor of his entrance to the 

building outside of normal duty hours, in violation of standard operating procedure and prior 

counseling; and

• failing to prepare for a scheduled animal surgery on February 7, 2013. 

App’x at 121–22. Because this was Mr. Heath’s third 

instance of formal discipline for misconduct,1 SSG Turner

proposed removal. Mr. Heath was removed for a second 

time on January 17, 2014,2 and he once more appealed his 

removal to the Board, again arguing, among other things, 

1 On July 24, 2012, Mr. Heath received a Letter of 

Reprimand, to be placed in his Official Personnel Folder 

for 18 months, for “significant documentation inaccuracies 

and three goats died due to not executing known best 

practice procedures.” App’x at 149. On November 28, 

2012, Mr. Heath was suspended without pay for two days 

for performing surgeries, using the wrong anesthetic 

agent and without approval, on five mice which later died. 

See App’x at 153, 155. 

2 Because Mr. Heath had been removed on January 

17, 2014, the Army did not restore Mr. Heath’s supervisory duties in accordance with the Board’s January 27, 

2014, order. 

 

Case: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/07/2016
HEATH v. ARMY 5

that he had been removed in retaliation for the alleged 

2011 whistleblowing. An administrative judge sustained 

Mr. Heath’s second removal on May 14, 2014. On appeal, 

however, the Board vacated and remanded, holding that 

the administrative judge erred in “finding that [Mr. 

Heath] was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel 

from litigating the facts underlying the agency’s charges” 

that were determined in the first removal action, and held 

that the administrative judge “must afford the parties the 

opportunity to further develop the record.” App’x at 29–

30. 

Following additional briefing and a one-day hearing, 

the administrative judge affirmed Mr. Heath’s second 

removal on September 30, 2015. The administrative judge 

determined that the Army had proven by preponderant 

evidence that Mr. Heath had engaged in the charged 

misconduct and that the penalty of removal was reasonable and promoted the efficiency of service. The administrative judge also held that Mr. Heath had established a 

prima facie case of reprisal for whistleblowing based on 

Mr. Heath’s prior protected disclosures, and evidence that 

his supervisor, SSG Turner, and the deciding official for 

the second removal, Colonel Lisa Lehning, were aware of 

his whistleblowing. However, the administrative judge 

found that the Army had established by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same 

personnel action in the absence of Mr. Heath’s disclosures. 

Mr. Heath did not file a petition with the Board for 

review of the initial decision, which became the final

decision of the Board on November 4, 2015. Mr. Heath

now petitions for review of the final decision. We have 

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

Case: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/07/2016
6 HEATH v. ARMY

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the decision of the MSPB unless it 

was (1) arbitrary, capricious, or 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); Salmon v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 663 F.3d 

1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding 

that Mr. Heath violated procedures and failed to perform 

his duties. In addition to testimony from Mr. Heath’s 

supervisors, the Board found that, “[d]uring his testimony, [Mr. Heath] acknowledged that he did not clean the 

lab [on February 5, 2013, and] . . . acknowledged . . . that 

he euthanized the mice at issue in this appeal. . . . [Mr. 

Heath] acknowledged that he arrived at work early on 

[March 4, 2013,] and did not contact either [of his supervisors] prior to entering the building.” App’x at 38, 39, 41. 

In addition, at the hearing, “[Mr. Heath] testified that he 

. . . had not read the [e-mail notifying him about the 

February 7, 2013 surgery],” confirming that he had failed 

to prepare for the surgery as charged. App’x at 42. 

The Board, in finding that the agency had proven by 

clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Heath would have 

been removed absent the whistleblowing, is supported by 

the record. In determining whether the agency would 

have removed Mr. Heath absent his prior protected disclosures, the Board properly considered “[1] the strength 

of the agency’s evidence in support of its personnel action; 

[2] the existence and strength of any motive to retaliate 

on the part of the agency officials who were involved in 

the decision; and [3] any evidence that the agency takes 

similar actions against employees who are not whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situated.” 

Whitmore v. Dep’t of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 

2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Case: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 6 Filed: 04/07/2016
HEATH v. ARMY 7

As to the first factor, the Board found that “the agency 

has proven all of the charges it brought against [Mr. 

Heath] in this removal action.” App’x at 46. As to the 

second, the Board found that there was no motive on the 

part of SSG Turner or the deciding official, Colonel 

Lehning, to retaliate against Mr. Heath by removing him. 

SSG Turner arrived after Mr. Heath’s protected disclosures, and just months before Major Collins’s departure. 

SSG Turner declared that “Mr. Heath’s opinions of Major 

Collins . . . had nothing to do with my decisions to propose 

Mr. Heath’s removal from federal service in 2013. . . . An 

investigation that I was not involved in was ending when 

I arrived . . . . I don’t know what that was about and it 

was not used, considered, or a factor in my decisions to 

propose Mr. Heath’s removal.” App’x at 165. Colonel 

Lehning was not even at the Medical Center when Major 

Collins was there, and similarly declared that “[Mr. 

Heath’s] general and conclusory comments about whistleblowing were not related to the charges in his proposed 

removal and they were not a factor in my removal decision. Mr. Heath was removed solely because of his misconduct.” App’x at 168. 

In considering the third factor, the Board noted that 

another technician who worked in the lab “received a 

written counseling from [SSG] Turner for his failure to 

properly perform his duties on February 5, 2013. However, I find that [the technician] is not similarly situated to 

[Mr. Heath] in light of the fact that he is in the military 

and not a civilian employee.” App’x at 47 n.6. The record 

additionally shows that Mr. Heath was the senior technician, and Mr. Heath testified that “as the quality control 

officer, he is responsible for ensuring that the facility was 

clean.” App’x at 38. The Board did not err in concluding 

that the Army had shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have removed Mr. Heath absent his 

disclosures.

Case: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 7 Filed: 04/07/2016
8 HEATH v. ARMY

We have considered Mr. Heath’s other arguments and 

find them without merit. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 16-1273 Document: 20-2 Page: 8 Filed: 04/07/2016