UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

JOSEPH S. GEFFRARD,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-0432-16-0627-I-1

DATE: January 31, 2023

THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Joseph S. Geffrard, Columbia, Maryland, pro se.

Byron D. Smalley, Esquire, and Davina Minnix, Washington, D.C., for the 

agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

REMAND ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which 

affirmed his removal for unacceptable performance under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43. 

For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2

and REMAND the case to the Washington Regional Office for further 

adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order. 

BACKGROUND

¶2 The appellant was previously employed as a GS-13 IT Specialist (Systems 

Analyst) with the agency. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 20 at 26. His job duties 

included the following, among other things: ensuring the integration of IT 

programs and services; designing, developing, and managing IT security systems; 

managing assigned projects; leading IT systems development projects from 

design to support; and evaluating the effectiveness of installed systems and 

services. Id. at 162. The appellant’s Performance Plan included the five

following critical elements: (1) Employee Satisfaction-Employee Contribution; 

(2) Customer Satisfaction-Knowledge; (3) Customer Satisfaction-Application; 

(4) Business Results-Quality; and (5) Business Results-Efficiency. Id. at 147-59. 

Additionally, each critical element had three sub-elements, lettered “A” through 

“C,” respectively. Id. The appellant’s performance was rated on a five-tier 

scale, including the following ratings: Outstanding (level 5), Exceeds Fully 

Successful (level 4), Fully Successful (level 3), Minimally Successful (level 2), 

and Unacceptable (level 1). Id. at 171, see id. at 122, 125. 

¶3 By a letter dated September 22, 2015, the appellant’s first-line supervisor 

placed him on a 60-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to address his 

performance in critical elements 2, 3, 4, and 5. IAF, Tab 20 at 113-20. 

Specifically, the PIP letter informed the appellant that his performance was 

unacceptable and that he was failing sub-elements (identified as performance 

“aspects”) 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C, 4B, 5A, and 5C of the respective critical elements. Id. 

The notice informed the appellant that, in order to attain a Fully Successful level 

of performance, he must meet all of the performance aspects listed in the critical 

job elements during the PIP period, and to attain a Minimally Successful level of 

performance and to retain retention in his position, he must fail no more than one 
3

performance aspect during the PIP period. Id. at 120. The notice also included 

suggestions for what the appellant should do to meet the performance aspects, and 

informed him that his supervisor would meet with him on a biweekly basis during 

the PIP period to review his work, assess his progress, and answer any questions 

or provide necessary guidance. Id. at 119-20. 

¶4 During a November 17, 2015 PIP counseling session, the appellant’s 

supervisor agreed to extend the PIP period by 14 calendar days, for the period 

from December 3, 2015, through December 17, 2015, to provide the appellant 

with additional counseling due to the supervisor’s absences during the PIP period. 

See id. at 79-80. After the close of the extended PIP period, on December 18, 

2015, the appellant met with his supervisor for a debriefing and to discuss his 

performance during the PIP. See IAF, Tab 33 at 36-57. By a letter dated January 

14, 2016, the agency proposed the appellant’s removal under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43, 

for unacceptable performance in critical elements 2, 3, 4, and 5. IAF, Tab 20 at 

60-69. After the appellant and his union representative provided an oral response 

to the proposal, see id. at 35-58, the agency issued a decision sustaining the 

specifications of unacceptable performance and removing the appellant from his 

position, effective April 26, 2016, id. at 29-33.

¶5 The appellant filed a Board appeal, challenging the merits of the agency’s 

action and raising the affirmative defenses of discrimination based on national 

origin and reprisal for requesting reasonable accommodation. IAF, Tab 1 at 1-5;

Tab 39 at 1-2, n.1; see IAF, Tab 38. After a hearing, IAF, Tab 43, the 

administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming the appellant’s removal, 

IAF, Tab 44, Initial Decision (ID). He found that the agency met its burden of 

proof on each of the elements of its case and that the appellant failed to prove his

affirmative defenses. ID at 7-20.

¶6 The appellant has filed a petition for review in which he alleges that the 

administrative judge improperly rejected three of his witnesses, challenges the 

administrative judge’s credibility determinations and asserts that an agency 
4

witness “committed perjury,” and requests that the Board allow his new legal 

counsel to “review his case,” indicating that his union representatives “messed up 

[his] case” during the oral reply to the removal proposal. Petition for Review 

(PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. The agency has filed a response in opposition to the 

petition for review, and the appellant has not filed a reply. PFR File, Tab 3.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

The administrative judge correctly concluded that, under the law in effect at the 

time, the agency satisfied its burden to prove that the appellant’s performance 

was unacceptable.

¶7 At the time the initial decision was issued, the Board’s case law stated that, 

in a performance-based action under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43, an agency must 

establish by substantial evidence that: (1) the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) approved its performance appraisal system and any significant changes 

thereto; (2) the agency communicated to the appellant the performance standards 

and critical elements of his position; (3) the appellant’s performance standards 

are valid under 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c)(1); (4) the agency warned the appellant of the 

inadequacies in his performance during the appraisal period and gave him an 

adequate opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance; and (5) after an 

adequate improvement period, the appellant’s performance remained unacceptable 

in at least one critical element. Towne v. Department of the Air Force, 

120 M.S.P.R. 239, ¶ 6 & n.5 (2013); see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1)(A). The

administrative judge addressed each of these elements in turn and found that the 

agency carried its burden with respect to all of them. ID at 6-18. These findings 

are supported by the record, and the appellant does not challenge them on petition 

for review. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115 (“The Board normally will consider only 

issues raised in a timely filed petition or cross petition for review.”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the administrative judge’s findings in this regard. 
5

The administrative judge correctly determined that the appellant failed to prove 

his affirmative defenses. 

¶8 The appellant does not challenge the administrative judge’s finding that he 

failed to prove his affirmative defense of national origin discrimination. PFR

File, Tab 1 at 4; see ID at 16-18. In denying the appellant’s discrimination 

affirmative defenses, the administrative judge applied the evidentiary standards 

set forth in Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612, ¶¶ 42, 48, 

49-51 (2015), overruled in part by Pridgen v. Office of Management & Budget, 

2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 23-25, finding that the appellant failed to introduce any 

evidence to support his conclusory claims of national origin discrimination and 

retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation. IAF, Tab 44, Initial

Decision (ID) at 16-20. In Gardner v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

123 M.S.P.R. 647, ¶¶ 30-31 (2016), clarified by Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, 

¶¶ 23-24, the Board clarified that it will not separate direct from indirect evidence 

and proceed as if such evidence were subject to different legal standards. Rather, 

the Board will evaluate the evidence as a whole, “in a single pile,” to determine 

whether the appellant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

prohibited consideration was a motivating factor in the contested personnel 

action. Id. (quoting Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 766 (7th Cir. 

2016)). With respect to the appellant’s national origin discrimination claim, the 

administrative judge determined that, aside from unsupported speculation that 

agency officials “maybe” removed him because he was not from the United 

States, the appellant had failed to produce any evidence to support this 

affirmative defense claim. ID at 18. Regardless of the characterization of the 

evidentiary standards, we find that the administrative judge properly considered 

the evidence as a whole in finding that the appellant did not prove that national 
6

origin discrimination was a motivating factor in his removal and so the appellant 

failed to prove this claim.2

¶9 Regarding the appellant’s affirmative defense of reprisal for requesting 

reasonable accommodation, the administrative judge also concluded that the 

appellant failed to prove this claim, which the appellant has not challenged on 

review. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, see ID at 18-20. Requesting reasonable 

accommodation is activity protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 

amended by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), the 

standards of which have been incorporated by reference into the Rehabilitation 

Act. 29 U.S.C. § 791(f); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a); Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 35, 

37 (recognizing that requesting reasonable accommodation and complaining of 

disability discrimination are activities protected by the ADAAA). After the 

issuance of the initial decision in this case, the Board clarified in Pridgen that 

this type of claim requires that the appellant prove “but-for” causation as his 

initial burden. Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 46-47. Because we agree with the 

administrative judge’s finding that, based on the evidence as a whole, the 

appellant failed to meet the lesser burden of proving that his protected activity 

was a motivating factor in his removal, we also find that he failed to meet the 

more stringent “but-for” standard that applies to his retaliation claim. See ID at 

18-20. Accordingly, we also conclude that the appellant failed to prove this 

affirmative defense, as modified to incorporate the correct standard identified in 

Pridgen.

Remand is necessary to afford the parties an opportunity to provide evidence and 

argument concerning whether the appellant’s placement on the PIP was proper.

¶10 Despite our conclusion that the administrative judge correctly determined 

that the appellant’s performance was unacceptable based on the standard 

 

2 Because we find that the appellant failed to prove that national origin was a 

motivating factor in his removal, we do not reach the question of whether his activity 

was a “but-for” cause of the removal action. See Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 20-25.
7

applicable at the time the initial decision was issued, after the initial decision in 

this case was issued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a 

precedential decision in Santos v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 

990 F.3d 1355, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2021), holding that part of the agency’s burden 

of proof under chapter 43 is to show by substantial evidence that the appellant’s 

performance leading up to the PIP was unacceptable. Following the issuance of 

Santos, the Board issued an Opinion and Order in Lee v. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 2022 MSPB11 ¶ 15, which incorporated the changes made by Santos, 

setting forth the agency’s burden of proof as follows: to defend an action under 

chapter 43, the agency must prove by substantial evidence that: (1) OPM 

approved its performance appraisal system and any significant changes thereto; 

(2) the agency communicated to the appellant the performance standards and 

critical elements of his position; (3) the appellant’s performance standards are 

valid under 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c)(1); (4) the appellant’s performance during the 

appraisal period was unacceptable in one or more critical elements; (5) the agency 

warned the appellant of the inadequacies in his performance during the appraisal 

period and gave him an adequate opportunity to demonstrate acceptable 

performance; and (6) after an adequate improvement period, the appellant’s 

performance remained unacceptable in at least one critical element.

¶11 Although the record contains evidence indicating that the appellant’s 

performance was unacceptable prior to the initiation of the PIP, see IAF, Tab 20 

at 121-45, Tab 33 at 28-31, we nevertheless must remand the appeal to give the 

parties the opportunity to present argument and additional evidence on whether 

the appellant’s performance during the period leading up to the PIP was 

unacceptable in one or more critical elements, see Lee, 2022 MSPB 11, ¶¶ 15‐17. 

On remand, the administrative judge shall accept argument and evidence on this 

issue and shall hold a supplemental hearing, if appropriate. Id., ¶ 17. The 

administrative judge shall then issue a new initial decision consistent with Santos. 

See id. If the agency makes the additional showing required under Santos on 
8

remand, the administrative judge may incorporate in the remand initial decision 

his prior findings on the other elements of the agency’s case, and the appellant’s 

affirmative defenses, as modified herein to apply the proper standard. See id. 

However, regardless of whether the agency meets its burden, if the argument or 

evidence on remand regarding the appellant’s pre-PIP performance affects the 

administrative judge’s analysis of the appellant’s affirmative defenses, he should 

address such argument or evidence in the remand initial decision. See Spithaler 

v. Office of Personnel Management, 1 M.S.P.R. 587, 589 (1980) (explaining that 

an initial decision must identify all material issues of fact and law, summarize the 

evidence, resolve issues of credibility, and include the administrative judge’s 

conclusions of law and his legal reasoning, as well as the authorities on which 

that reasoning rests).

The appellant’s remaining arguments do not warrant Board review.

¶12 On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge rejected three 

of his witnesses because the administrative judge “claimed that [he] didn’t know 

what they were going to say.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. He asserts that the 

administrative judge “rejected” his supervisor as a witness, but a “few days prior 

to” the hearing “said that he could consider having her as a witness if [the 

appellant] provided all the information.” Id. The appellant stated that he told the 

administrative judge prior to the hearing that he had a “legally obtained phone 

conversation” between himself and his supervisor, but that the administrative 

judge informed him that he would not be allowed to “play the tape in court.” Id.

¶13 The appellant’s challenges to the administrative judge’s evidentiary rulings 

are unpersuasive. An administrative judge has wide discretion to control the 

proceedings, including the authority to exclude testimony and evidence he 

believes would be irrelevant or immaterial. Sanders v. Social Security 

Administration, 114 M.S.P.R. 487, ¶ 10 (2010). The Board has found that, to 

obtain reversal of an initial decision on the ground that the administrative judge 

abused his discretion in excluding evidence, the petitioning party must show on 
9

review that the administrative judge disallowed a relevant witness or evidence 

that could have affected the outcome. Id. In contrast to the appellant’s assertion, 

the administrative judge approved his supervisor as a witness, despite the 

appellant’s failure to file a subpoena request for the former Federal employee. 

IAF, Tab 39 at 5. Similarly, the initial decision demonstrates that the 

administrative judge considered the transcript of the recording but found that the 

document was “difficult to comprehend without additional background and 

context and therefore [did] little to advance the appellant’s claims.” ID at 15 

n.16. The appellant did not file an exception to the summary of the prehearing 

conference, in which the administrative judge granted the appellant’s request to 

call his supervisor as a witness and allowed him to introduce relevant portions of 

the recording transcript to refute or corroborate material facts during the hearing. 

IAF, Tab 39 at 5-6. Additionally, the appellant failed to articulate any reason 

why the unknown testimony of his former coworker, to whom he had not spoken 

prior to the prehearing conference, could have affected the outcome of the appeal. 

PFR File, Tab 1 at 4; IAF, Tab 39 at 5. To the extent that the appellant sought to 

introduce the testimony of his former supervisor to demonstrate his prior 

“outstanding” performance, the administrative judge found her ratings of the 

appellant’s performance were not in dispute in the record. IAF, Tab 39 at 5.

¶14 The record also clearly refutes the appellant’s argument on review that the 

administrative judge “told [him] that the burden of proof was not with the 

Agency.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. The administrative judge provided explicit 

instructions to the parties in both the hearing order and summary of prehearing 

conference that the agency had the burden of proof regarding the removal action 

and the appellant had the burden of proving his affirmative defenses. IAF,

Tab 30 at 4-9, Tab 39 at 2‐5.

¶15 Additionally, the appellant challenges on review the administrative judge ’s 

credibility determination regarding an unspecified witness. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. 

He argues that the administrative judge “called the witnesses credible, and one of 
10

the witnesses committed perjury in his court room.” Id. The appellant claims 

that he “pointed it out” to the administrative judge, who “said it wasn’t important 

at that point.” Id. In its response to the petition for review, the agency notes that 

the appellant failed to identify the witness who allegedly committed perjury, but 

speculates that the appellant was referring to the testimony of the deciding 

official, who maintained that he appeared in person at the appellant’s oral reply, 

despite the appellant’s insistence that he was not there in person. PFR File, Tab 3 

at 8; IAF, Tab 43 (Hearing Recording). The Board must give due deference to an 

administrative judge’s credibility determinations when they are based, explicitly 

or implicitly, on the observation of the demeanor of witnesses testifying at a 

hearing; the Board may overturn such determinations only when it has 

“sufficiently sound” reasons for doing so. Haebe v. Department of Justice, 

288 F.3d 1288, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To the extent that the appellant challenges 

the administrative judge’s credibility determination of the deciding official, we 

conclude that the initial decision adequately addresses the administrative judge ’s 

reasons for finding that the deciding official was a credible witness. 

¶16 Finally, regarding the appellant’s discussion of his unsuccessful attempts to 

obtain legal representation prior to his oral reply to the proposed removal and his 

assertion that his union representatives “messed up [his] case,” the appellant’s 

failure to secure his own representation during the proceedings below does not 

form a basis for granting his petition on review. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4; see

Brum v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 109 M.S.P.R. 129, ¶ 5 (2008).
11

ORDER

¶17 For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Washington 

Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order. 

 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

 /s/ for 

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board