UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

LESLIE K. HARRACH,

Appellant,

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DE

- 1221

- 12

- 0491

- W

- 2

DATE: September 13, 2022



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Leslie K. Harrach , Phoenix, Arizona, pro se. Cynthia B. De Nardi
, Esquire, San Francisco, California, for the agency.

BEFORE Cathy A. Harris
, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon
, Member Tristan L. Leavitt , Member

FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
denied her request for corrective action . Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains

erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not requir ed to follow or distinguish them in any future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

interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge ’ s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner ’ s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
of the Code of Federal Regulations, s ection 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115 ). After fully considering the filings in this app eal, we conclude that the petitioner
has not esta blished any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly MODIFIED by this Final Order to (1) vacate the administrative judge ’ s credibility determinations made after a hearing the appellant did not request , (2) find that the appellant established that her four disclosures were protected and were contributing factor s in her termination
, and (3) find a slight retaliatory
moti ve on the part of relevant agency officials , we AFFIRM the initial decision.

BACKGROUN D ¶2 Effective August 29, 2010, the agency appointed the appellant to an excepted

- service Attorney

- Advisor position with the agency ’ s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in Phoenix, Arizona

. Harrach v. Social Security
Administration
, MSPB Docket No. DE

- 1221

- 12

- 0 491

- W

- 1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8 at 115 . The appointment was subject to a 2

- year trial period. Id

. At
all times relevant to this appeal, the ap pellant ’ s first

- line supervisor was M.H., Attorney Adjudicator and Group Supervisor, her second

- line supervisor was L.W., Hearing Office Director , and her third

- line supervisor was P.F., Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ). Harrach v. Social Security
Administration , MSPB Docket No. DE

- 1221

- 12

- 491

- W

- 2, Appeal File (W

- 2 AF ) , Tab 45 at 40

- 41.3

¶3 On August 17 , 2012, CALJ P.F. issued the appellant a notice of termination

. IAF, Tab 8 at 53

- 54

. In the notice, the agency provided the follow ing narrative in support of the termination: Despite counseling and opportunity to improve, you have failed to properly demonstrate courtesy and consideration when interacting with coworkers, including management, and you h ave not conducted yourself with pr opriety. On October 19, 2010 and October 5, 2011, you were advised that all employees must adhere to the Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch as explained in the Annual Personnel Reminders. Specifically, the A nnual Personnel Remind ers, Part 1.6, states that you “are responsible for observing the requirements of courtesy and consideration while dealing with coworkers or serving the public and must conduct yourself with propriety.” On May 24, 2012 you were counseled by your first

- lin e supervisor after you made discourteous remarks. For example, you told [M.H.] , your supervisor, that she was “stupid”, and “incompetent.” During the counseling session with her, you engaged in further misconduct by making additional discourteous remarks. You indicated that [M.H.]

was not a legal professional and that her professional license was “a fake.” You also frequently interrupted [M .H.] during the meeting and used profanity, among other inappropriate conduct. After the counseling session, your supervisor e

- mail ed you a summary of the discussion. This e

- mail also reminded you about the requirement that you treat others with courtesy and respect, as set forth in the Annual Personnel Reminders, Part 1.6. Subsequently, you continued to interact with others, including management, in an aggressive and inappropriate manner. Id

. The appellant ’ s termination was effective August 27, 2012. Id

. at 52. ¶4 On September 4, 2012, t he appellant timely filed an individual right of
action (IRA) appeal in which she alleged that the agency terminated her in retaliation for her protected whistleblower disclosures

. IAF, Tab 1 at 3

- 5, 11

- 16

. The appel lant indicated on her initial appeal form that she requested a hearing.
Id

. at 2. On January 23, 2013, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal without prejudice pending a Board determination regarding the retroactive effect
of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112

- 199,
126 Stat. 1465 (WPEA) . IAF, Tab 14, Initial Decision. On July 15, 2013, the4

appeal was refiled sua sponte following the Board ’ s decision in Day v. Department of Homeland Security
, 119 M.S.P.R. 589 (2013)

. W

- 2 AF , Tab 1. ¶5 The administrative judge subsequently issued a jurisdictional order providing the parties with their respective burdens of proof in an IRA appeal

. W

- 2 AF, Tab 8. After the parties had an opportunity to respond to the order, the administrative judge found that the Board has jurisdiction over the appe llant ’ s IRA appeal

. W

- 2 AF, Tab 40

. Specifically, she found that the appellant had exhausted her administrative remedies before the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) by first raising her concerns in an OSC complaint dated August 6, 2012, as
amended on Augu st 31, 2012. Id

. at 1. In addition, she found that the appellant nonfrivolously alleged that she was terminated during her trial period in retaliation for having made protected whistleblower disclosures. Id

. at 2. The administrative judge also found th at a separation from Federal service constituted a personnel action under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (a)(2)(A)

. Id

. ¶6 Havin g found jurisdiction over the appeal, the administrative judge granted a hearing on the merits of the appeal. W

- 2 AF, Tabs 20 , 40

. The appellant subsequently filed a motion for a decision on t he written record. W

- 2 AF,
Tab 42. Thereafter, the administrative judge issued an order cancelling the hearing and providing the parties with t he opportunity to submit closing evidence and argument no later than January 31, 2014. W

- 2 AF, Tab 44. Following the submission of closing evidence and argument by the parties, the administrative judge ordered a hearing on her own initiative , relying o n 5 C.F.R. § 1201. 41 ( b ) (5) for doing so

. W

- 2 AF, Tab 57. On May 19

- 21, 2014, she held an in

- person hearing. W

- 2 AF , Tab 69

. ¶7 On May 2 5, 2016, the administrative judge issued an initial decision denying the appellant ’ s requ est for corrective action. W

- 2 AF, Tab 76 , Initial Decision (W

- 2 ID)

. She first found that the appellant established a prima facie case of whistleblower reprisal

. Id

. at 18

- 19. In that regard, she found that the appellant raised the following disclosures in both her OSC complaint and her5

Board appeal: (1) a May 2012 meeting with C ALJ P.F. during which the appellant disclosed fraud and discrimination by her supervisor M.H

. concerning administrative law judge ( ALJ ) M.T. and attorney M.C. ; (2) a June 2012 affidavit
submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the appellant disclosing “[M.H.] ’ s fraud, coercion, abuse of power and discrimination”; (3) her July 25, 2012 letter to the EEOC disclosing that the

agency violat ed the Privacy Act when it improperly accessed her offi cial personnel records; and (4) her August 3, 2012 letter to the EEOC in which she disclosed “witness tampering activities of [ M.H. ] , [ C ALJ P.F. ], and [ D.T. ] that
occurred on August 2, 2012.” W

- 2 ID at 3; W

- 2 AF , Tab 40 at 2. B ased on
extensive credibility determinations, the administrative judge found that the meeting between the appellant and CALJ P.F. described in disclosure (1) did not

occur , W

- 2 ID at 12

- 13, 19, and that the events described in disclosure (2) did not happen, W

- 2 ID at 6

- 8 , 15, 19

. She found, however, that it was undisputed that the appellant ’ s disclosures to the EEOC in July and August 2012 were in fact
made and that d isclosures (3) and (4) evidence d a violation of law and therefore
constitute d protected disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8)

. 2 W

- 2 ID at 19

.

2 To the extent the appellant may be asking the Board to order corrective action based on alleged reprisal for engaging in equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity, we (and the administrative jud ge) did not address her concerns in that context. The disclosures and personnel action at issue in this case happened before the enactment of the WPEA. The WPEA did not apply retroactively to disclosures or activities that occurred before its December 27 , 2012 effective date. The WPEA expanded the IRA appeal rights afforded under 5 U.S.C. § 1221 (a) to include requests for corrective action based not only on the prohibited personnel practices disc ussed in section 2302(b)(8) but also for those discussed in sections 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), and (D). See WPEA, § 101(b)(1), 126 Stat. at 1465

- 66; see also 5 U.S.C. § 1214 (a)(3) . Most pertinent here, under the WPEA, an employee has the right under certain circumstances to seek corrective action when she suffers reprisal due to the filing of an EEO complaint. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(9)(A)(i) (prohibiting an agency from retaliating against an employee for “the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right” related to whistleblowing). However, the WPEA’s predecessor statute, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), d id not authorize the Board to order corrective action in cases involving alleged reprisal for engaging in EEO activity. See Spruill v. Merit Systems Protection Board
, 978 F.2d 679 , 690 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (recognizing that the WPA did6

Furthermore, the administrat ive judge found that the appellant established by preponderant evidence that her protected disclosures were a contributing factor in
her termination

. W

- 2 ID at 20

- 22. ¶8 Having found that th e appellant established a prima facie ca se of
whistleblower retaliation as to disclosures (3) and (4), the administrative judge considered whether the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated the appellant in the absence of her protected disclosures.
W

- 2 ID at 22

- 27. She found the agency met its burden of proof and, therefore
, she denied the appellant ’ s request for corrective action. W

- 2 ID at 27

- 28. ¶9 The appellant timely filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. T he agency has filed a response , PFR File, Tab 6, and the appellant has filed a reply to the agency ’ s response, PFR File, Tab 7

. The appellant raises the following arguments on review: (1) the administrative judge ’ s credibility findings should be overturned because the administrative judge failed to properly weigh and consider evidence and misapplied Hillen ; 3 (2) the administrative judge improperly excluded evidence and te stimony during the hearing; (3) the administrative judge erred in convening the hearing followi ng the appellant ’ s motion for a decision on the written record; (4 ) the administrative judge erred in finding that two of her alleged disclosures were not protected; (5 ) the

not provide individuals with a right to bring an IRA appeal based on claims of reprisal for making disclosures protected under section 2302(b)(9)). As a result, neithe r we nor the administrative judge analyzed the appellant’s EEO activity as a possible section 2302(b)(9) retaliation claim under the WPEA.

3 To resolve credibility issues, an administrative judge must identify the factual questions in dispute, summarize the evidence on each disputed question, state which version she believes, and explain in detail why she found the chosen version more credible, considering such factors as: (1) the witness’s opportunity and capacity to observe the event or action question ; (2) the witness’s character; (3) any prior inconsistent statement by the witness; (4) a witness’s bias, or lack of bias; (5) the contradiction of the witness’s version of events by other evidence or its consistency with other evidence; (6) the inherent i mprobability of the witness’s version of events; and (7) the witness’s demeanor. Hillen v. Department of the Army
, 35 M.S.P.R. 453 , 45 8 (1987).7

administrative judge failed to draw an adverse inference against the agency for
ch anging its “story

. . . [once] it realized that the knowledge/timing test an d evidence went against them ” ; (6 ) the administrative judge erred in finding that the agency met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence; (7 ) the administrative judge committed a procedural error by delaying the issuance of the
initial decision ; and (8 ) the administrative judge did not consider that the agency violated the notice requirement in the appellant ’ s union contract by failing to provide her with sufficient not ice of her termination. PFR File, Tabs 1, 7.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUME NTS ON REVIEW The administrative judge should have decided the appeal based on the written record

. ¶10 As noted above, the appellant contends on review that the administrative judge erred in c onvening a hearing over her motion for a decision on the written record. PFR File, Tab 1 at 13. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.41 (b)(5), an administrative judge has the authority to order a hear ing on h er own initiative if the administrative judge determines that a hearing is necessary to resolve important
issue s of credibility ; ensure that the record on significant issues is fully developed; or to otherwise ensure a fair and just adjudication of the case. An administrative judge ’s authority to order a hearing, however, must be viewed in light of the Congressional purpose underlying the right to a hearing. Dodd v. Department of the Interior , 48 M.S.P.R. 582 , 584 (1991)

. Our reviewing court has stated that the hearing right exists for the benefit of the appellant and that “a
heari ng with live witnesses should never be forced upon an employee who has
forfeited or abandoned [her] right to a hearing.” Callahan v. Department of the
N avy , 748 F.2d 1556
, 1559 ( Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that when an appellant failed to appear for a hearing without a valid excuse, it was error for the administrative judge to continue the hearing without the appellant, vacating the Board’s decision , and remanding the case for reconsideration based “on the8

record developed by the agency during its investigation”) ; see Dodd , 48 M.S.P.R.

at 584

. ¶11 While we are sympathetic as to why the administrative judge, as the trier of fact and relying on the langu age of section 1201.41(b)(5), may have wished to develop the record on the issues before her in this whistleblower case, we find that the administrative judge should have granted the appellant ’ s request for a
decision on the written record and determined w hether to grant or deny the appellant ’ s request for corrective action without relying on the hearing testimony.
See Grimes v. General Services Administration
, 84 M.S.P.R. 244 , ¶ 8 (1999); Kirkpatrick v. Department of the Interior
, 49 M.S.P.R. 316 , 318 (1991) ; Dodd
, 48 M.S.P.R. at 584

- 85

. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, t he administrative judge ’ s credibility findings are vacated. However, because the
writ ten record is complete, we will rule on the merits of the appeal without remanding this appeal to the field office. See Grimes , 84 M.S.P.R. 244 , ¶ 9 (declining to remand the appeal to the regional office when the administrative judge erred in considering the hearing testimony in reaching her decision but the record was complete). Because we reach our decision in this case based on t he written record, as the appellant sought below, we will not consider the appellant ’ s challenges to the administrative judge ’ s credibility determinations, nor will we consider her argument that the administrative judge improperly excluded e vidence and arg ument during the hearing. ¶12 In deciding this case on the wri tten record, we have considered, among other things, the statements and affidavits submitted by the parties. These

out

- of

- court statements and affidavits constitute hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in Board proceedings, and the assessment of the probative value of hearsay evidence necessarily depends on the circum stances of each case. Borninkhof v. Department of Justice , 5 M.S.P.R. 77 , 83

– 87 (1981). The following factors may be included in considering the probative value of the hearsay evidence: (1) the availability of persons with firsthand knowledge to9

testify at the hearing; (2) whether the statements of the out

- of

- court declarants were signed or in affidavit form and whether anyone witnessed the signing; (3) the agency ’ s explanation for failing to obtain signed or sworn statements; (4) whether the declarants were disinterest ed witnesses to the events and whether
the stat ements were routinely made; (5) the consistency of declarants ’ accounts with other information in the case, internal consistency, and their c onsistency with each other; (6) whether corroboration for statements can otherwise be found in the agency record; (7) the absence of contradictory evidence; and (8) the credibility of the declarants when they made the statement attributed to them. Id

. at 87. We have considered these factors in assessing whether the parties have met their respective burden s of proof.
The appellant established a pr ima facie case of whistleblower retaliation

. ¶13 After establishing the Board ’ s jurisdiction in an IRA appeal, as the administrative judge found the appellant did in this cas e, 4 an a ppellant must establish a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation by proving by preponderant evidence that s he made a protected disclosure that was a contributing factor in a personnel action taken against her. 5 U.S.C. § 1221 (e)(1);
Lu v. Department of Homeland Security
, 122 M.S.P.R. 335 , ¶ 7 (2015). If the appellant makes out a prima facie case, then the agency is given an opportunity to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absen ce of the protected disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 1221 (e)(1)

- (2); Lu , 122 M.S.P.R. 335 , ¶ 7. Preponderant evidence is that degree of releva nt evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely true
than unt rue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4 (q). C lear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm

4 The parties do not challenge the administrative judge’s jurisdictional finding on review. Because the agency does not challenge that finding, we discern no basis for disturbing it.10

belief as to the allega tions sought to be established. 5 C.F.R. § 1209.4 (e). It is a higher standard than preponderant evidence. McC arthy v. International Boundary
& Water Commission , 116 M.S.P.R. 594 , ¶ 43 (2011), aff ’ d , 497 F

. App ’ x 4 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
The appellant established by preponderant e vidence that she made protected disclosures. ¶14 A protected disclosure i s a disclosure of information that an appellant reasonably believes evid ences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific dan ger to public health or safety. 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8)(A) ; Linder v. Department of Justice , 122 M.S.P.R. 14 , ¶ 12 (2014). A reasonable
belief exists if a disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable by the appellant could reaso nably conclude
that the actions evidence one of the categories of wrongdoing l isted in
section 2302(b)(8)(A). Id. ; see Lachance v. White
, 174 F.3d 1378 , 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 1999)

. To establish that s he made a protected disclosure, the appellant need not prove that the matter disclosed actual ly established one of the types of wrongdoing listed under section 2302(b)(8)(A); rather, s he must show that the matter disclosed was one that a reasonable person in h er position c ould have believed evidenced any o f the situations specified in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8). Chavez v. D epartment of Veterans Affairs , 120 M.S.P.R. 285 , ¶ 18 (2013)

. Moreover, the Board does not require an appellant to correctly label the category of wrongdoi ng under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8). Tullis v. Department of the Navy
, 117 M.S.P.R. 236 , ¶ 7 (2012). ¶15 As previously noted, the administrative judge found that the appellant
raised the following disclosures: (1) a May 2012 me eting with CALJ P.F. where the appellant claims she disclosed fraud and discrimination by her supervisor
M.H. regarding ALJ M.T. and attorney M.C. ; (2) a June 2012 affidavit submitted
to the EEOC disclosing “[M.H.] ’ s fraud, coercion, abuse of power and11

discrimination”; (3) a July 25, 2012 letter to the EEOC disclosing Privacy Act violations; and (4) an August 3, 2012 letter to the EEOC in which the appellant disclosed “witness tamper ing activities of [M.H.], [CALJ P.F.], and [D.T.] that
occurred on Augus t 2, 2012.” W

- 2 ID at 3; W

- 2 AF, Tab 40 at 2. We discern no basis for disturbing the administrative judge ’ s findings that the appellant ’ s disclosures to the EEOC in July and August 2012 occurred

. In particular, t he record reflects that, by letter dated July 25, 2012, the appellant alleged to the EEOC that the agency violated the Privacy Act by M.H. disclosing her personal
information to the agency ’ s EEOC counsel and by the agency ’ s EEOC counsel disclosing the information to ano ther employee. 5 IAF, Tab 5 at 44

- 48 . In addition, on August 3, 2012 , the appellant alleged to the EEOC that the agency engaged in witness tampering when it asked her to review the transcript of a deposition she had given in another employee ’ s EEOC case. Id

. at 59

- 61

. She alleged that M.H. raised her voice and repeatedly told her to sign the deposition
and that the appellant felt under such duress that she was unable to properly review her deposition. Id

. The appellant contended that M.H. ’ s actions violated
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) and 18 U.S.C § 1512

. 6 Id

. ¶16 W e agree that a reasonable person in the appellant ’ s position c ould reasonably be lieve that these d isclosures evidence d a violation of law . W

- 2 ID

at 19. Thus, we affirm the administrative judge ’ s findings that disclosures (3) and (4) constitute protected disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8). See

5 The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a , generally prohibits an agency from disclosing records without the prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a (b). For purposes of section 552a, the term “record” means any grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency and that contains , among other things, h er name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assign ed to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or photograph. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a (a)(4).

6 Section 1512 , titled “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant,” prohibits intimidating a person with intent to influence that person’s testimony or cause her to withhold testimony or a document from an official proceeding. See 5 U.S.C. § 1512 (b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 relates to depositions by oral examination.12

Hupka v. Department of Defense , 74 M.S.P.R. 406, 410

- 11 (1997) (finding that the appellant ’ s disclosures regarding alleged Privacy Act violations were protected) ; see also Kalil v. Department of Agriculture
, 96 M.S.P.R. 77 , ¶ 16 (200 4) (determining that the appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that his
disclosure evidenced a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 )

. In making th ese determination s , we do not find that the appellant actually established violation s of a law, rule, or regulation , but rather that s he met h er burden of proving that the
matter disclosed was one that a reasonable person in h er position c ould believe
evidenced such a violation. See Weber v. Department of the Army
, 9 F.3d 97 , 101 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ( finding that the Whistleblower Protection Act does not give the Board the right to review the subs tance of whistleblowing claims ). ¶17 T he administrative judge relied on extensive credibility determinations in
f inding that disclosure (1) did not happen and that the events in disclosure (2) did

not occur

. We have considered the documentary evidence supporting these
disclosures and, as set forth below, we find tha t these disclosures are in fact protected

. ¶18 In her August 31, 2012 amended OSC complaint, the appellant stated the following regarding disclosure (1) : My direct supervi sor, [M.H.], and

. . . [CALJ P.F.] became aware in early May that I had revealed the discrimination a nd fraud by [M.H.] against [ALJ M. T

. ] and [M.C.]. [P.F.] chose to do nothing about it. [P.F.] and [M.H.] were aware that I would be serving as a witness in the case of another individual who had proceedings in front of the [EEOC] and would be submitting an affidavit that disclosed, among

o ther things, the discrimination agains t [ALJ M. T

. ] and [M.C.] as well as the individual involved in the EEOC case. IAF, Tab 5 at 34

. In a statement on jurisdiction made under penalty of perjury
, the appellant contended that, during a conversation with C ALJ P.F. in early May 2012, she disclosed that M.H. directed her to sign prewritten affidavits

. W

- 2 AF, Tab 12 at 5

- 6 , 9

. According to the appellant, the affidavits stated that13

she witnessed ALJ M.T. verbally abusing and berating staff and that M.C. was verbally abusive to staff and did o utside work during work hours. Id

. ¶19 The appellant raised similar allegations in her deposition testimony. Specifically, she stated under oath that, in early May 2013, she told CALJ P.F.
that M.H. attempted to “coerce [her] into filin g false affidavits” against ALJ M.T. and M.C. in an effort to get them removed. W

- 2 AF , Tab 36 at 31, 35

- 36. The appellant stated that M. H. wanted her to say that Judge M.T. verbally attacked and berated people and that M.C. used work tim e to do outside work. Id

. at 36

- 37. She further stated that she never witnessed the incidents M.H. asked her
to detail in the affidavits. Id

. at 36. ¶20 Furthermore, the appellant reiterated her allegations that M.H. attempted to coerce her into signing “false affidavits” in a June 21, 2012 affidavit to the
EEOC , which forms the basis for disclosure (2)

. W

- 2 AF , Tab 15 at 12

- 13. In her affidavit, she stated that M.H. attempted to coerce her to file false affidavits regarding an ALJ and a Senior Attorney Advisor. Id

. at 13. ¶21 In a declaration under penalty of perjury, CALJ P.F. stated that she did not recall having a conversation with the appellant in early May 2012 regarding
M.H. ’ s alleged “attempted coercion.” W

- 2 AF , Tab 45 at 29

- 30. She also stated
that she did not recall the appellant “ever telling [her] anything about [M.H.] committing fraud or coercion.” Id

. at 30. CALJ P.F. did state that the appellant
asked her on May 30, 2012 , whether she was aware that M.H. “wanted [the appellant] to keep a n eye on [M.C. ’ s] activities at work.” The record also
contains a declaration under penalty of perjury from M.H. In the declaration,
M.H. did not refer to the affidavits described in disclosure s (1) and (2)

. Id

. at 40

- 46. ¶22 We find the appellant ’ s state ments relating to M.H. ’ s request that the appellant sign false affidavits to have significant probative value

. See Borninkhof

, 5 M.S.P.R. at 87

. As set forth above, these statements were made
under penalty of perjury or in an affi davit form , and are internally consistent

.14

Moreover, they are not directly contradicted by M.H. ’ s sworn declaration. Regarding the appellant ’ s statements that she told CALJ P.F. in early May that
M.H. attempted to force her to commit perjury, we find this evidence entitled to less probative value because it is contrad icted by CALJ P.F. ’ s sworn statement that such a conversation did not occur . However, the appellant ’ s statements on this issue are nonetheless entitled to some probative value because they were made under penal ty of perjury and are internally consistent . Thus, upon applying
the Borninkhof factors to the hearsay evidence submitted by the parties, and without the benefit of the administrative judge ’ s comprehensive credibility findings on these issues, we find it is more likely true than untrue that disclosures (1) and (2) occurred. ¶23 Furthermore, we find that disclosure (1) constitutes a protected disclosure. The appellant characterized disclosure (1) as evidencing a violation of law, rule, or regulation

— specifically, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622 . W

- 2 AF, Tab 12

at 10. Section 1622, titled “Subornation of perjury,” states “[w]hoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornat ion of perjury, and shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” She also alleged that her disclosure evidenced an abuse of authority on the part of M.H.
Id

. at 10

- 11. ¶24 We find that a reasonable person in the appella nt ’ s position c ould reasonably believe that her disclosure to CALJ P.F. evidenced a violation of law, rule, or regulation or an abuse of authority

. At the very least, the appellant ’ s disclosure may evidence a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 , which prohibits making false statements in any matte r within the jurisdiction of a Federal agency. See
Luecht v. Department of the Navy , 87 M.S.P.R. 297 , ¶ 13 (2000) (finding that the appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that his disclos ure evidenced a violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ). An abuse of authority occurs when there is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by a Federal official or employee that adversely affects the rights of any person or results in personal gain or advantage to herself15

or to other preferred persons. P ulcini v. Social Security Administration
, 83 M. S.P.R. 685 , ¶ 9 (1999), aff ’ d
, 250 F.3d 758 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Board has
stated t hat there is no de minimis standard for abuse of authority. Id

. We find
that a disinte rested observer could reasonably conclude that M.H.’s directing the appellant to sign false affidavits constituted an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power that adversely affected the rights of ALJ M.T. and those of M.C

. ¶25 Concerning disclosure (2), the record reflects t hat, in an affidavit dated
June 21 , 2012, the appellant alleged to the EEOC that [M.H.] “attempted to
coerce me to file false affidavits that would have been untruthful and not based

on person al observation or knowledge” in order to get two other employees

remov ed. W

- 2 AF, Tab 15 at 12

- 13

. For the same reasons set forth above for disclosure (1) , we find that a reasonable person in the appellant ’ s position c ould reasonably believe that disclosure (2) evidenced a violation of law, rule, or regulation and an abuse of authority

. We therefore find that disclosure (2) also constitutes a protected disclosure. Accordingly, we affirm the administrative judge ’ s findings that disclosures (3) and (4) are protected
, but we modify the initial decision to find that disclosures (1) and (2) also are prot ected under
5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8).
The appellant established by preponderant evidence that her disclosures were a contributing factor in her termination

. ¶26 The term “contributing factor” means any disclosure that affects an

agency ’ s decision to threaten, propose, take, or not take a personnel action with respect to the individual making the disclosure. Usharauli v. Department of
Health & Human Services , 116 M.S.P.R. 383 , ¶ 31 (2011) . The most common way of proving the contributing factor element is the “knowledge/timing” test.
Wadhwa v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 110 M.S.P.R. 615 , ¶ 12, aff ’ d
, 353 F

. App ’ x 43 5 (Fed. Cir. 2009) . Under that test, an appellant can prove the contributing factor element through evidence that the official taking the personnel action knew of the whistleblowing disclosure and took the personnel action16

within a period of time such that a reasonable per son could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action. Id

. To satisfy the test, the appellant need demonstrate only that the fact of, not necessarily the content of, the protected disclosure was one of the factors that tended to affect the personnel action in any way. Armstrong v. Department of Justice , 107 M.S.P.R.
375 , ¶ 19 (2007) , overruled o n other grounds by Edwards v. Department of
Labor
, 2022 MSPB 9

. ¶27 The administrative judge found that the appellant established that
di sclosures (3) and (4) were a contributing factor in her termination

. She found
that CALJ P.F. , M.H., L.W., and other pertinent agency officials involved in the appellant ’ s termination disclaimed knowledge of the appellant ’ s protected
disclosures

. W

- 2 ID at 20. The administrative judge noted , however, that the appellant sent copies of her July and August disclosures to the attorney representing the agency before the EEOC and that he presumably received a copy
of her June affidavit

. Id

. at 21

. She found that, based on the circumstances, it was reasonable to infer that relevant agency officials knew the appellant was reporting concerns to the EEOC. Id

. The administrative judge also noted that the appellant sent an email to L.W., copying C ALJ P.F., which asserted that L.W. told the appellant, “[w]e can’t have you filing things with the court about management and our attorney. We can produce your employment records, we are your employer and there will be a request in the file.” Id

. ; IAF, Tab 5 at 53

- 54

. The administrative judge found that this email suggests that L. W. had been told about the appellant ’ s July 25, 2012 letter expressing Privacy Act concerns.
W

- 2 ID at 21

. She thus found that the appellant met the knowledge/timing test as to disclosures (3) and (4). The agency does not challenge these findings on review, and we discern no basis for distur bing them

. 7

7 As previously noted, the appellant contends on review that the administrative judge failed to draw an adverse inference against the agency for changing its “story . . . [once] it realized that the knowledge/timing test and evidence went against them.” PF R File,17

¶28 We find that the appellant also established that disclosures (1) and (2) were

a contributing factor in her termination

. T h e appellant established both components of the knowledge / timing test as to disclosure (1) because she made the disclosure to CALJ P.F., who issued her letter of termination, and because th e May 2012 meeting during which she made the disclosure occurred mon ths prior
her August 27, 2012 termination. See Mudd v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 120 M.S.P.R. 365 , ¶ 10 (2013) ( holding that a personnel action that occurred within 1 year of a protected disclosure satisfies the “tim ing” component of the knowledge/ timing test )

. A s previously noted, the administrative judge found that
, based on the specific circumstances of this case, it was reasonable to infer that
the relevant agency officials had knowledge that the appellant was repor ting
concerns to the EEOC. W

- 2 ID at 21. The agency does not dispute the administrative judge’s findings regarding contributing factor on review. In addition, the appellant has met the timing component of the knowledge /timing test for disclosure (2). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the appellant has met the contributing factor requir ement with regard to
disclosure (2)

. ¶29 We th erefore affirm the administrative judge ’ s findings that the appellant met the contributing factor requirement concerning disclosures (3) and (4), but modify the initial decision to find that the appellant also established contributing
factor regarding disc losures (1) and (2)

.

Tab 1 at 10

- 11. The appellant appears to argue that the agency “changed their story” to show that the appellant’s termination was initiated before her first disclosure to CALJ P.F. in early May 2012. Id

. at 11. However, while noting that agency officials discussed the appellant’s separation prior to her protected disclosures, W

- 2 ID at 24, the administrative judge ultimately found that the appellant established the contributing factor element regarding disclosures (3) and (4). Thus, to the exten t the agency may have submitted evidence to show the personnel action was contemplated prior to the appellant’s disclosures, the administrative judge did not find any such evidence to be dispositive concerning the contributing factor element.18

The agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action absent the appellant ’ s disclosures. ¶30 In determining whether the agency has met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of the appellant ’ s whistleblowing, the following factors should be
considered: (1) the strength of the agency ’ s evidence in suppo rt of its personnel action; (2) the existence and s trength of any motive to retaliate on the part of the agency officials who were in volved 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. Carr v. Social Security Administration
, 185 F.3d 1318 , 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ; Parikh v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 116 M.S.P.R. 197 , ¶ 36 (2011)

. When conducting an assessment of the Carr factors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has instructed the Board to “evaluate all the pertinent evidence in determining whether an element of a claim or defense has been proven adequately,” Whitmore v. Department of Labor
, 680 F. 3d 1353 , 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and, building on this directive, the Board has held that a proper analysis of the clear and convincing evidence issue requires that all of the evidence be weighed together

— both the evidence that supports the

agency ’ s case and the evidence that detracts from it, Shibuya v. Department of Agriculture
, 119 M.S.P.R. 537 , ¶ 37 (2013) (citing Whitmore
, 680 F. 3d at 1368 ). ¶31 Regarding Carr factor one , we agree with the administrative ju dge ’ s finding that the agency had strong e vidence in support of its personnel action

. W

- 2 ID

at 23

- 24. As previously noted, the agency charged the appellant with “interact[ing] with others, including management, in an aggressive and inappropriate manner.” IAF , Tab 8 at 54. In reaching her find ing concerning the
first Carr factor , the administrative judge correctly noted that the record is replete with combative, adversarial emails sent by the appellant to her superiors. W

- 2 ID

at 23

. The record also contains evidence indicating that the appel lant acted inappropriately towards nonmanagement employees.19

¶32 O n April 13, 2012, the appellant sent M.H. an email demanding that she answer a series of interrogatory

- style questio ns about work assignments.
W

- 2 AF, Tab 36 at 147

- 48. The email included the following: Please state which parts you disagree with (i.e. what is not to your understanding ( see original ema il)). Clarify your position in disagreement.
Let ’ s make this simple and basic: (1) Did I not request[] work be added to my queue on Thursday, April 12, 2012 via email? Yes or No? Id

. On May 2, 2012, the appellant sent L.W., her second

- line supervisor, an email objecting to L.W. ’ s instruction to pick up additional work or request leave as a “baseless, unconscionable personnel decision.” Id

. at 132. The appellant
further characterized L.W. ’ s response as “inappropriate” and accused agency management of “incompetence.” Id

. ¶33 On Ma y 24, 2012 , M.H. sent an email to an agency official stating that the appellant had come to her office and accused another employee of “stealing” her “quick parts” to draft his decisions. Id

. at 126. According to M.H., the appellant
announced she was “going to confront [the employee] .” Id

. M.H. stated that, after discussing the issue with the employee
, she asked the appellant to come to
her office. Id

. During their conversation, the appellant called M.H. “stupid” and “incompetent.” Id

. M.H. expre ssed a concern in her email that the appellant would attempt to confront the employee later in the day, despite her instruction that she abstain from doing so. Id

. While M.H. ’ s recollection of the appellant ’ s
statements constitutes hearsay evidence, we f ind this evidence to have significant probative value. See Borninkhof , 5 M.S.P.R. at 87

. ¶34 Following the appellant ’ s conduct on that date, M.H. decided to counsel the appellant about her recent behavior in the office. W

- 2 AF , Tab 6 at 80

- 83. M.H. subseque ntly memorialized her May 24, 2012 counseling session with the appellant in an email she sent to the appellant on that date

. Id

. According to M.H., before she could begin counseling the appellant, the appellant informed her20

“in a very loud and indignant manner that [she] had things stolen” from her office
on three occasions. Id

. at 80. M.H. stated that the appellant then yelled at her
and told her she knew about the thefts. Id

. M.H. advised the appellant that she had found the appellant ’ s behavior to be unprofessional on several occasions and
reminded her that, as a licensed legal p rofessional and Federal employee, she was obliga ted to treat all people with respect and co urtesy. Id

. T he appellant responded by telling her that M.H. was not a licensed legal professional and that
her license was fake. Id

. M.H. further stated in the email that the appellant interrupted her constan tly during the meeting, called her a liar, and stated that what M.H. was telling her was bull shit

. Id

. at 81. M.H. ’ s email description of
her May 24, 2012 meeting with the appellant is corroborated by her sworn declaration, in which she alleged that , dur ing the May 24, 2012 counseling session, the appellant had interrupted her numerous times, called her a liar
, and told her that her law license was “fake.” W

- 2 AF , Tab 45 at 43. While M.H. ’ s account of the appellant ’ s statements constitute s hearsay, we find this evidence to have considerable probative value. See Borninkhof , 5 M.S.P.R. at 87

. ¶35 On July 26, 2012, the appellant sent M.H. an email stating, among other things, “[t]his back and forth is getting nowhere and is wasting time I could be writing, and you all could be doing more important things. I think we have another of your comprehension issues.” W

- 2 AF , Tab 36 at 118. The appellant’s email followed an email conversation between M.H. and the appellant during which the appellant s tated that she could not “access references/research on the Intranet,” and M.H. attempted to help her resolve this issue. Id

. at 118

- 19. ¶36 Upon considering the documentary evidence in support of the agency ’ s action, we affirm the administrative judge ’ s find ing that the agency had strong evidence in support of the appellant ’ s termination. This evidence reflects that the appellant behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner toward her managers and others at the agency both before and after M.H. coun seled her on May 24, 2012. Further, as noted by the administrative judge, the agency warned21

the appellant that it was scrutinizing he r during her trial period. W

- 2 ID at 24; IAF, Tab 5 at 80; see Lewis v. Department of the Army
, 63 M.S.P.R. 119 , 126 (1994) (noting an agency’s obligation to use the probationary period to assess the appellant’s potential for succ ess), aff’ d
, 48 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 199 5 ). We thus
find that Carr factor one weighs in the agency’s favor. ¶37 Regarding Carr factor two , t he administrative judge found that the agency officials involved in the appellant ’ s termination did not have a motive to retali ate against the appellant

. W

- 2 ID at 24

- 26. In relevant part, the administrative judge
found that management officials started discussing the appellant ’ s separation prior to the appellant ’ s protected disclosures. Id

. at 24. The administrative judge
noted that CALJ P.F. ’ s decision to terminate the appellant was firm by early July 2012, prior to the appellant ’ s July and August 2012 disclosures. Id

. ¶38 The appellant disputes the administrative judge ’ s finding regard Carr factor
two on review , arguing th at agency officials had a strong retaliatory motive and that they fabricated reasons for the personnel action following the decision to
terminate her . PFR File, Tab 1 at 31. Specifically, as noted above , the appellant
contends that the agency attempted t o show that her termination was initiated
before her first disclosure to the CALJ in early May 2012. Id

. at 11

. ¶39 T he record reflects that agency officials were concerned about the appellant ’ s conduct prior to her first disclosure and considered the possibi lity of terminating her as early as May 2, 2012. In a sworn declaration, L.W. stated that the appellant had communicated impatiently and inappropriately with management in April 2012. W

- 2 AF , Tab 45 at 34. Because L.W. was concerned about the appellant ’ s misconduct, on May 2, 2012, she contacted P.B., an agency regional attorney, to inquire whether the appellant was hired under an excepted

- service appointment. Id

. at 35. L.W. stated that she “raised the issue because [she] was not sure if the other man agers in the office were aware of [the] [a]ppellant ’ s status or the possibility of terminating her appointment.” Id

. In a sworn declaration, P.B. stated that, in March 2012, he began assisting M.H. with22

“employee relations issues involving the [a]ppellan t.” Id

. at 38. He stated that
L.W. contacted him on May 2, 2012, to discuss problems with the appellant and that L.W. asked him to determine whether the appellant was serving a trial period because she was concerned about the appellant ’ s behavior. M.H. stated in a sworn declaration that she contacted a regional agency attorney in April 2012 to discuss the appellant ’ s “rude and discourteous” manner. Id

. at 44. Based on the documentary evidence, we find the appellant ’ s contention, that the agency “fabric ated” reasons for her termination, lack s merit. The record reflects that the appellant ’ s supervisors expressed a strong concern about her conduct prior to her first disclosure in early May 2012 and that L.W. inquired about the possibility of terminating her as early as May 2, 2012. ¶40 In light of this evidence, and a lack of record evidence suggesting a strong retaliatory motive on the part of relevant agency officials, we find that agency
of ficials involved in the appellant ’ s termination did not have a strong motive to retaliate against the appellant. However, we disagree with the administrative judge ’ s finding that these officials had no motive to retaliate against the appellant

. Agency of ficials that were either directly involved in or that could have influenced the decision to terminate the appellant were the subjects of her
disclosures . Thus, we find that , under the circumstances of this case, relevant agency officials had a slight reta liatory motive. See Whitmore
, 680 F.3d

at 1370

- 71 (finding that the appellant’s criticisms “cast [the agency], and, by implication all of the responsible [agency] officials, in a highly critical light by calling into question the propriety and honesty of their official conduct”);
Russell v. Department of Justice , 76 M.S.P.R. 317 , 326 (1997) ( considering the fact that the agency officials were the subjects of the appellant ’ s protected
disclosures in determining that they had a retaliatory motive ). We therefore modify the administrative judge ’ s finding regarding Carr factor two to find the

ex istence of a slight retaliatory motive

.23

¶41 Finally, regarding Carr factor three, the appellant alleges that the agency
did not take similar actions against employees who had not engaged in whistleblowing but who were otherwise similarly situated. PFR File, Tab 1 at 33.
O ur reviewing court has long held that , for purposes of assessing this factor,

“ Carr does not impose an affirmative burden on the agency to produce evidence with respect to each and every one of the three Carr factors to weigh them each individually in the agency ’ s favor,” and th at “the absence of any evidence relating

to Carr factor three can effectively remov e t hat factor from the analysis.”
Whitmore
, 680 F.3d at 1374

. However, it also has observed that “the
Government ’ s failure to produce evidence on this factor ‘ may be at the agency ’ s peril, ’ considering the Government ’ s advantage in accessing this type of evidence.” Miller v. Department of Justice , 842 F. 3d 1252 , 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Whitmore , 680 F. 3d at 1374). ¶42 Here, the agency contended that there were no other employees in the appellant ’ s office who demonstrated similar con duct issues. W

- 2 AF , Tab 45

at 19. The agency further alleged that there w ere no other employees in that office who were serving a trial period like the appellant. Id

. The administ rative judge found, accordingly, that there was no evidence that the agency took similar actions against employees who are not whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situated . She concluded that this Carr factor helps neither the appellant
nor the a gency . W

- 2 ID at 27. ¶43 We find that the administrative judge did not adopt an unduly restrictive
view of what it means to be “similarly situate d” for purposes of this appeal.
Carr , 185 F.3d at 1327 (finding that “the ‘ support staff ’ employees of the New Haven hearing office were not similarly situated to Ms. Carr” when the employees were supervised under separate chains of command). Furthermore
, we agree with the administrative judge’s find ing that the third Carr factor is not a significant consideration under the circumstances of this case. See Rumsey v. Departm ent of Justice , 120 M.S.P.R. 259 , ¶ 36 (2013) ( finding that, when there24

was no evidence in the record concerning how the agency treated appropriate

non whistleblower comparators, consideration of this factor did not materially
assi st the Board in deciding whether the agenc y had met its burden of proof)

. ¶44 Even if Carr factor three could be found to “cut slightly against the Government,” we are nonetheless left with the firm belief that the agency would have taken the same action in the absence of the appellant ’ s protected disclosures based on the strength of the evidence in support of its action and the absence of a
sufficient motive to retaliate against her. See Mithen v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 122 M.S.P.R. 489 , ¶ 36 (2015) (holding that the Board does not view the
Carr factors as discrete elements, each of which the agency must prove by clear and convincing evidence; rather, the Board will weigh the factors together to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing as a whole), aff ’ d
, 652 F. App ’ x 971 (Fed. Cir

. 2016) ; Sutton v. Dep artment of Justice , 94 M.S.P.R.
4 , ¶ ¶ 19

- 21 (2003) (finding that a whistleblower was lawfully removed based on
the evidence under Carr factors one and two, when the record contained no evidence of action taken against similarly situated nonwhistleblowe rs) , aff’d
, 97 F. App’x 322 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

. Accordingly, we agree with the administrative judge ’ s conclusion that the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated the appellant during her trial period in the absence
of her protected whistleblower disclosures. Thus, we conclude that the appellant
is not enti tled to corrective action in her IRA appeal. 8

8 As previo usly noted, the appellant argued on review that the administrative judge committed a procedural error by delaying the i ssuance of the initial decision and that the administrative judge failed to consider that the agency violated the notice requirement in t he appellant ’ s union contract by failing to provide her with sufficient notice of her termination. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7 n.2, 13, 26. These assertions do not provide a basis for review. The appellant’s argument that she received insufficient notice is no t material to the dispositive issues in this IRA appeal. Furthermore, to the extent the issuance of the initial decision was delayed, the appellant has not shown that any delay prejudiced her substantive rights. A n adjudicatory error that is not prejudic ial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision . See Panter v. Department of the Air Force
, 22 M.S.P.R. 281 , 282 (1984).25

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 9 The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113

. You may obtain
review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (a)(1). By statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the approp riate
forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b). Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Meri t Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which o ption is most appropriate for your situation an d the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should immediatel y review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
chosen forum. Please read carefully each of the th ree main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
sho uld contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(A).

9 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot advise which option is most appropria te in any matter.26

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.caf c.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Prote ction Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
disc rimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain judicial review of this decision

— including a disposition of your discrimination
claims

— by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board
, 582 U.S.

____ , 13 7 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of27

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court

- appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, o r other security. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5 (f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a

. Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed thr ough the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

. Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues

. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). You must file any such request with the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receiv e this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision. If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is: Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960 Wash ington, D.C. 20013 If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, N.E. Suite 5S W12G Washington, D.C. 20507
(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8) or28

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no cha llenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 10 The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(B). If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “G uide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit , you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

10 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the Presi dent on July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent ju risdiction. The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115

- 195, 132 Stat. 1510.29

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor war rants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. /s/ for Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board