Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03220/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Army
Respondent
Corazon McDonald
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CORAZON MCDONALD,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2014-3220

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-12-0344-C-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 4, 2015 

______________________ 

CORAZON MCDONALD, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., ALLISON 

KIDD-MILLER. 

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, MAYER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-3220 Document: 29-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/04/2015
2 MCDONALD v. ARMY

PER CURIAM. 

Corazon McDonald appeals a final order of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“board”) denying her petition 

for enforcement of an earlier board order requiring the 

Department of the Army to cancel her removal and award 

her back pay and benefits. See McDonald v. Dep’t of the 

Army, No. DA-0752-12-0344-C-1, 2014 MSPB LEXIS 5385

(Aug. 5, 2014) (“Petition for Enforcement Decision”);

McDonald v. Dep’t of the Army, No. DA-0752-12-0344-I-1, 

2012 MSPB LEXIS 4571 (Aug. 8, 2012) (“Removal Cancellation Order”). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Prior to her removal, McDonald worked for the Army 

as an administrative assistant. In March 2012, the Army 

decided to remove her from her position for “failure to 

obtain and maintain a favorable background investigation 

for Federal employment.” Before the effective date of her 

removal, however, McDonald retired from the federal 

service. McDonald subsequently filed an appeal with the 

board, challenging the Army’s decision to remove her. An 

administrative judge determined that the Army violated 

McDonald’s due process rights because it considered 

information obtained ex parte in deciding to remove her 

from her position. Removal Cancellation Order, 2012 

MSPB LEXIS 4571, at *10–11. The judge reversed the 

Army’s decision to remove McDonald and ordered it to 

provide her with “the appropriate amount of back pay,” 

after making adjustments and deductions required by 

Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) regulations. Id. 

at *18. The judge also ordered McDonald “to cooperate in 

good faith with the [Army’s] efforts to compute the 

amount of back pay and benefits due and to provide all 

necessary information requested by the [Army] to help it 

comply.” Id.

The Army thereafter attempted to return McDonald 

to her original position and to calculate the amount of 

Case: 14-3220 Document: 29-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/04/2015
MCDONALD v. ARMY 3

back pay she was due. Christy George, an Army human 

resources specialist, asked McDonald to come to a meeting on September 13, 2012, and to bring her W-2 forms for 

any jobs she had held since her retirement from the

Army. George explained that the Army needed this 

information in order to calculate the amount of back pay 

to which McDonald was entitled. McDonald asserted, 

however, that she did not need to furnish information 

about her employment after her retirement “because she 

was only employed part-time and her employment did not 

have anything to do with the [Army].” Respondent’s App. 

(“R.A.”) 72.

McDonald came to the meeting scheduled for September 13, 2012, but failed to bring any paperwork related to 

any wages she earned after her retirement from the 

Army. At the meeting, the Army gave McDonald a return 

to duty letter, instructing her to return to her position on 

September 17, 2012. McDonald asserted, however, that 

“she did not want to return to the same position which 

she had left.” R.A. 78. 

McDonald did not report for work on September 17, 

2012. Army employees subsequently called her, reminding her that she had been instructed to return to duty. 

On May 8, 2013, the Army sent McDonald a letter instructing her to report to duty on May 10, 2013. McDonald responded that it was her “decision not to return to 

the same hostile environment and [the] same original

department/agency.” R.A. 64.

McDonald filed a petition with the board, challenging 

the Army’s efforts to comply with the Removal Cancellation Order.* An administrative judge found that the 

* After her meeting with the Army on September 

13, 2012, McDonald filed a petition with the board seeking review of the administrative judge’s Removal Cancel-

 

Case: 14-3220 Document: 29-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/04/2015
4 MCDONALD v. ARMY

Army “had taken all reasonable actions towards compliance” with the order, but that McDonald “ha[d] failed to 

cooperate with the agency’s efforts.” Petition for Enforcement Decision, 2014 MSPB LEXIS 5385, at *3. On appeal, the board affirmed. It concluded that while 

McDonald had the right “to be placed back into the position from which she was wrongfully removed,” she had no 

right to be placed “in a different position of her choice.” 

Id. The board explained, moreover, that because OPM 

regulations required the Army to deduct the amount of 

any outside earnings from McDonald’s back pay award, 

her refusal to provide information about those earnings 

precluded the Army from calculating the appropriate 

amount of back pay to which she was entitled. Id. at *4. 

McDonald then filed a timely appeal with this court.

DISCUSSION

Our review of a board decision is circumscribed by 

statute. We must affirm such a decision unless 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).

lation Order. The board subsequently affirmed that 

order, as amended to clarify that the Army was required 

to place McDonald “as nearly as possible” in the position 

she had been in prior to her removal. McDonald v. Dep’t 

of the Army, No. DA-0752-12-0344-I-1, 2013 MSPB LEXIS 

2259, at *3 (Apr. 26, 2013). In addition, the board forwarded McDonald’s claim that the Army had failed to 

comply with the Removal Cancellation Order to a regional 

office for adjudication as a petition for enforcement. Id. at 

*4. 

 

Case: 14-3220 Document: 29-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/04/2015
MCDONALD v. ARMY 5

Substantial evidence supports the board’s determination that the Army made all reasonable efforts to restore 

McDonald to her original position. See Petition for Enforcement Decision, 2014 MSPB LEXIS 5385, at *3–4. 

The Army provided her with both oral and written notice 

instructing her to return to duty, R.A. 63, 65–66, 72, 77, 

79, but she unequivocally refused to return to her original 

position as an administrative assistant, R.A. 63–64, 69–

70, 85. The Removal Cancellation Order required the 

Army to restore, as nearly as possible, the status quo ante

by returning McDonald to her original position and 

awarding her the appropriate amount of back pay. Contrary to McDonald’s assertions, nothing in that order 

required the Army to transfer her to a position other than 

the one she originally held. See Kerr v. Nat. Endowment 

for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730, 733 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining 

that if an employee is wronged by improper agency action, 

the agency must, “as nearly as possible,” restore that 

employee to the situation “which would have obtained but 

for” the agency’s wrongful action (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

In calculating McDonald’s back pay award, the Army 

was required to deduct the amount of any wages she 

earned in the period after she retired from the Army. See

5 C.F.R. § 550.805(e)(1). The Army could not calculate or 

distribute McDonald’s back pay award, however, because 

she refused to provide information about her outside 

earnings in the period after her March 2012 retirement. 

See Petition for Enforcement Decision, 2014 MSPB LEXIS 

5385, at *4 (emphasizing that the Army “needs documentation concerning [McDonald’s] earnings, or it cannot 

calculate her back pay in a way that complies with the 

law”).

On appeal, McDonald contends that she did, in fact, 

supply the required information about her outside earnings. She fails, however, to provide any credible evidence 

to support this contention. McDonald further argues that 

Case: 14-3220 Document: 29-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/04/2015
6 MCDONALD v. ARMY

the board failed to consider all of the evidence she submitted. The fact that the board did not specifically discuss 

every piece of evidence in the record, however, is insufficient to show that it failed to properly consider such 

evidence. See Charles G. Williams Constr., Inc. v. White, 

326 F.3d, 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

We have considered McDonald’s remaining arguments 

but do not find them persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm 

the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

denying McDonald’s petition for enforcement.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-3220 Document: 29-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/04/2015