Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01193/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01193-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven T. Corbin
Petitioner
Department of Justice
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

STEVEN T. CORBIN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1193

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-4324-15-1023-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 9, 2016

______________________ 

STEVEN T. CORBIN, Bethesda, MD, pro se.

IDA NASSAR, 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., MELANIE RUSSELL. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, SCHALL, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1193 Document: 32-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2016
2 CORBIN v. DOJ

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

 Steven T. Corbin petitions for review of the final 

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

that denied his request for corrective action following his 

resignation from the Department of Justice (“DOJ” or 

“agency”). Corbin v. Dep’t of Justice, No. DC-4324-15-

1023-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct 27, 2015) (“Final Decision”). We 

affirm. 

DISCUSSION

I.

On July 27, 2015, Mr. Corbin filed an appeal with the 

Board alleging that DOJ had discriminated against him 

on account of his prior military service and had forced him 

to resign from his position as an accountant (GS-13) in 

the Justice Management Division (“JMD”), in violation of 

the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. 

Specifically, Mr. Corbin asserted that he had been accused of theft and that, because of extreme duress put 

upon him, he was forced to resign on January 6, 2015.1

On October 14, 2015, at Mr. Corbin’s request, the 

administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was 

assigned held a telephonic hearing. At the hearing, 

Mr. Corbin testified that his resignation came after 

Christopher C. Alvarez, Deputy Director of the Finance 

Staff, JMD, his third-level supervisor, accused him of 

stealing “military money.” Final Decision at 3–4. 

 

1 Although Mr. Corbin contends that he separated 

from DOJ on January 6, 2015, the record suggests he 

remained at DOJ until January 20, 2015, the date he 

informed his supervisor that he was leaving his position 

“effective immediately.” See Final Decision at 2–3, 5. 

Case: 16-1193 Document: 32-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2016
CORBIN v. DOJ 3

Mr. Corbin stated that he was questioned “all night” 

about the matter and that the agency installed a camera 

above his desk to watch his activities. Id. at 3. Mr. 

Corbin further testified that, two weeks after his resignation, he tried to get his job back but was denied entry to 

the building. Id.

Mr. Alvarez testified that he never accused 

Mr. Corbin of theft or of stealing from a “military fund” or 

any other fund. Id. at 4. In fact, Mr. Alvarez stated, he 

was not aware of the existence of any “military fund” 

administered by the Finance Staff. See id. Mr. Alvarez 

also testified that he was not aware of any camera being 

placed in Mr. Corbin’s office, that he had no involvement 

in Mr. Corbin’s resignation, and that, before the instant 

appeal, he was not aware of any report by Mr. Corbin that 

he was being treated improperly. Id. Mr. Alvarez stated 

that it was normal protocol to deny access to anyone who 

resigned from DOJ and was no longer an employee. Id.

The AJ also received the testimony of Letitia Bing, 

Assistant Director for JMD’s Financial Operations Services Group. Id. Ms. Bing was Mr. Corbin’s second-level 

supervisor. See id. On January 20, 2015, after learning 

that Mr. Corbin intended to leave DOJ, she went to his 

office, spoke to him, and tried to convince him to stay. Id. 

at 5. Ms. Bing testified that she also spoke to Mr. Corbin 

later in the day. She stated that she told him he was a 

good employee and, again, tried to convince him not to 

resign. Id. Ms. Bing stated that she told Mr. Corbin he 

could take leave for a couple of weeks if he wanted, but 

that he just packed up his things and left. Id. Hoping 

that Mr. Corbin might change his mind, Ms. Bing did not 

immediately process his resignation. About a week later, 

however, a JMD employee who had been in contact with 

Mr. Corbin on an almost daily basis told Ms. Bing that 

Mr. Corbin wanted his resignation to stand; as a result, 

she processed it. Id. The last contact Ms. Bing had with 

Mr. Corbin was on April 1, 2015, when, at his request, she 

Case: 16-1193 Document: 32-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2016
4 CORBIN v. DOJ

met him for lunch. She recounted that, at the lunch, 

Mr. Corbin asked how things were going at the office and 

whether his position had been filled, but that he did not 

say he wanted his job back. Id. at 6. Ms. Bing testified 

that Mr. Corbin had never been absent from work on 

account of military duty or service and that he had never 

told her he was treated improperly at DOJ. Ms. Bing also 

testified that a camera was never placed over Mr. Corbin’s 

desk. Id.

On October 27, 2015, the AJ issued an initial decision 

in which he found that Mr. Corbin had failed to show that 

his uniformed service had played any part in his separation from DOJ. The AJ stated that Mr. Corbin’s claims of 

being accused of theft or embezzlement were “unsupported by any corroborating evidence.” Id. at 6. The AJ also 

stated that Mr. Corbin had failed to show that “the performance, application to perform, or obligation to perform 

duty in the uniformed service was a substantial or motivating factor in his resignation or any other agency action.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). On this basis, the AJ determined that 

Mr. Corbin had failed to establish that DOJ had violated 

his USERRA rights. Id. The AJ’s initial decision became 

the final decision of the Board on December 1, 2015, after 

Mr. Corbin failed to petition the Board for review. See 5 

C.F.R. § 1201.113(a). This appeal followed. We have 

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

II.

Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of 

the Board is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision 

unless 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); Kewley v. Dep’t 

Case: 16-1193 Document: 32-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2016
CORBIN v. DOJ 5

of Health & Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir.

1998).

III.

An employee making a USERRA discrimination claim 

bears the initial burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his military service was a 

“substantial or motivating factor” in the adverse employment action taken against him. Sheehan v. Dep’t of the 

Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In rejecting 

Mr. Corbin’s claim of mistreatment and discrimination, 

the AJ relied on the testimony of Mr. Alvarez and 

Ms. Bing. In other words, the AJ weighed the evidence 

before him and made credibility determinations regarding 

the evidence presented and the testimony of the witnesses, crediting the testimony of Mr. Alvarez and Ms. Bing 

over that of Mr. Corbin. Such credibility determinations 

are “virtually unreviewable.” Parkinson v. Dep't of Justice, 815 F.3d 757, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mr. Corbin, 

moreover, has presented us with no reason why we should 

disturb those determinations. The testimony of 

Mr. Alvarez and Ms. Bing clearly refutes Mr. Corbin’s 

claim of discrimination and mistreatment by the agency. 

Thus, Mr. Corbin has failed to demonstrate error in the 

Final Decision. 

IV. 

For the foregoing reasons, the final decision of the

Board is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 16-1193 Document: 32-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2016