NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GARY R. AMASON,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2021-1800

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-19-0523-I-2.

______________________ 

Decided: April 2, 2024

______________________ 

JAMES M. ANDERSEN, Houston, TX, for petitioner. 

 AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. 

Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 1 Filed: 04/02/2024
2 AMASON v. USPS

PER CURIAM. 

Gary R. Amason petitions for review of a Merit Systems 

Protection Board (“Board”) decision affirming the United 

States Postal Service’s reduction of his grade and pay. 

Amason v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. DA-0752-19-0523-I-2, 

2021 WL 533568 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 8, 2021) (“Decision”)

(J.A. 1–28).1 We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Amason was employed with the United States 

Postal Service (“Postal Service”) as an EAS 21 Postmaster 

at the Webster Post Office (“WPO”) in Webster, Texas. Decision at 2; J.A. 36. Postmasters are responsible for overseeing the daily operations of a post office, including the 

timely delivery of mail. Decision at 2; J.A. 36; J.A. 182–83. 

In November 2018, the Postal Service Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) investigated WPO’s scanning procedures, revealing that over 1,000 packages were improperly 

scanned as delivered in September 2018 when the packages actually remained within the WPO. Decision at 2; 

J.A. 169–70. 

In February 2019, based on a management referral 

from the OIG, Manager of Post Office Operations Sunny 

Sunny also investigated the improper scans. Decision at 2; 

J.A. 172–73. Based on the results of his investigation, on 

April 10, 2019, Mr. Sunny issued a notice of proposed reduction in grade and pay to Mr. Amason based on “unacceptable conduct” of instructing staff to make 

inappropriate scans of packages or misrepresent the status 

of packages, indicating they had been delivered or 

1 Because the reported version of the Board’s decision is not paginated, citations in this opinion are to the 

version of the Board’s decision included in the Joint Appendix. For example, Decision at 1 is found at J.A. 1.

Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 2 Filed: 04/02/2024
AMASON v. USPS 3

available for pickup when they were not. Decision at 2–3; 

J.A. 36. The letter proposed a reduction in grade and pay

from Postmaster, EAS 21 with a salary of $93,461.00, to 

Supervisor, EAS 17 with a salary of $81,234.00. J.A. 38. 

The letter also explained that Mr. Amason’s actions violated the Postal Service’s rules and regulations, quoting

multiple provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations 

Manual. J.A. 38. 

On August 29, 2019, Deciding Official Myron Kelly issued a letter of decision, sustaining the charge and reducing Mr. Amason’s grade and pay, effective September 5, 

2019. Decision at 3; J.A. 40–44. Mr. Amason appealed the

decision to the Board. Decision at 1; J.A. 29–34. 

On February 8, 2021, the administrative judge affirmed the Postal Service’s decision. Decision at 1–20. The 

administrative judge found that the Postal Service proved 

its charge by preponderant evidence. Id. at 3–6. The administrative judge also found that Mr. Amason failed to establish a due process claim, that there is a nexus between 

the misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and that 

the penalty of demotion is reasonable. Id. at 17–20. On 

March 15, 2021, the administrative judge’s decision became the Board’s final decision. Id. at 20. 

Mr. Amason appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

II. DISCUSSION

A.

“We affirm a decision of the Board unless it is found to 

be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been 

followed; or unsupported by substantial evidence.” FordClifton v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 661 F.3d 655, 658–59 

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)). “We ‘must reverse a decision of the Board if it . . . is not in accordance 

Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 3 Filed: 04/02/2024
4 AMASON v. USPS

with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fifth Amendment . . . .’” Ward v. U.S. Postal Serv., 634 

F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (first alteration in original) (quoting Blank v. Dep’t of the Army, 247 F.3d 1225, 

1228 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

B.

On appeal, Mr. Amason argues that the Postal Service’s action violated his due process rights, Appellant’s 

Br. 8, 11–12; see also id. at 13–23, and that there was no 

substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision, id. at

8, 29–30. We address each argument in turn.

Regarding due process, Mr. Amason argues that neither the Board nor the Postal Service cited to “any written 

document, including but not limited to any USPS Management Directive, USPS Manual, USPS Rule, USPS Procedure, Regulation in the United States Code of Federal 

Regulation, or any statute in the United States Code[ ]as 

the basis for any discipline issued against [him].” Id. at 15. 

We find this argument unpersuasive. The April 2019 Letter cites several provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual as the basis for the reduction in pay and 

grade, and Mr. Amason does not contest that the Employee 

and Labor Relations Manual constitutes a part of the 

Postal Service’s regulations. J.A. 38; Appellant’s Br. 15; see 

also 39 C.F.R. § 211.2(a)(2) (“The regulations of the Postal 

Service consist of . . . the Employee and Labor Relations 

Manual . . . .”). The cited provisions of the Employee and 

Labor Relations Manual expect employees to “be loyal to 

the United States government and uphold the policies and 

regulations of the Postal Service,” to “discharge their assigned duties conscientiously and effectively,” and to be

“honest, reliable, trustworthy, courteous, and of good character and reputation.” J.A. 38 (emphases added) (citing 

Employee and Labor Relations Manual §§ 665.11, 665.13, 

665.16). Because Mr. Amason was charged with instructing his staff to make misrepresentations as to the status of 

Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 4 Filed: 04/02/2024
AMASON v. USPS 5

packages, J.A. 36, an action that is inherently dishonest, 

the cited sections of the Employee and Labor Relations 

Manual provided sufficient notice. See J.A. 38 (noting the 

lack of integrity in Mr. Amason’s actions). Therefore, the 

April 2019 Letter, citing relevant provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual, satisfied the due process requirement that “an employee be given notice of the 

charges against him in sufficient detail to allow the employee to make an informed reply.” Do v. Dep’t of Hous. & 

Urb. Dev., 913 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations 

omitted). 

Furthermore, even if we take as true Mr. Amason’s allegation that the Postal Service had no scanning practices 

and procedures at the time of his conduct, Appellant’s Br. 

17, Mr. Amason still owed a duty to be honest, reliable, and 

trustworthy under the provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual discussed above. Inappropriate 

scans of packages violate this duty. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board did not err and that Mr. Amason has 

failed to establish a due process violation. 

C.

Mr. Amason also argues that the Board’s findings on 

nexus and the reasonableness of the penalty are not supported by substantial evidence. See Appellant’s Br. 29–30; 

see also id. at 23–28. We disagree. 

Regarding nexus, the Board found the nexus “clear

where, as here, the agency has established by preponderant evidence that the appellant, as Postmaster, instructed 

Postal employees to misrepresent the status of mail 

through improper scanning.” Decision at 18. Because Mr. 

Amason acted inappropriately in his capacity as a Postmaster, there was substantial evidence to support a finding 

of nexus because there was a “direct connection” between 

the efficiency of the service and Mr. Amason’s misconduct. 

Parker v. U.S. Postal Serv., 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 

1987). The nexus between the “falsification of government 

Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 5 Filed: 04/02/2024
6 AMASON v. USPS

records”—like Post Service’s records of the status of packages—and the “efficiency of the service [is] ‘obvious on the 

face of the facts.’” Gonzales v. Def. Logistics Agency, 772 

F.2d 887, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Phillips v. Bergland, 586 F.2d 1007, 1011 (4th Cir. 1978) and citing Hayes 

v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1539 & n.3 (Fed. Cir.

1984)). Whether Mr. Amason violated any criminal statute 

or engaged in any other egregious conduct is irrelevant. 

See Appellant’s Br. 26. The record shows that Mr. Amason’s actions negatively impacted the efficiency of the 

Postal Service by resulting in numerous customer complaints. J.A. 96–152. Therefore, we find the Board’s finding on nexus to be supported by substantial evidence. 

We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the penalty of demotion is 

reasonable. Decision at 18–20. The August 2019 Decision 

Letter and Mr. Kelly’s declaration include thorough analyses of the Douglas factors and support this finding. See 

J.A. 41–42; J.A. 182–85. Mr. Amason argues that his penalty is inconsistent with the penalty imposed on others, citing to one example when another postmaster in Texas was 

given a letter of reprimand in lieu of a demotion under a 

similar charge. Appellant’s Br. 30; see also J.A. 550–53. 

However, in that case, only about 100 packages were found 

to be mis-scanned, and none of the employees identified the 

reprimanded postmaster as the official that gave them the 

instruction to perform improper scans. J.A. 550–51. Here, 

over 1,000 packages were improperly scanned, Decision at 

2; J.A. 89–91, and several employees stated that Mr. Amason instructed them to make the improper scans on multiple occasions. See, e.g., J.A. 81–82; J.A. 180–81; J.A. 84; 

J.A. 87. Because the other postmaster’s conduct was not 

analogous, his reprimand does not establish that Mr. Amason received a penalty inconsistent with other employees 

in similar circumstances. 

Mr. Amason also contends that the offense was “very 

minor” compared to the amount of mail that WPO 

Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 6 Filed: 04/02/2024
AMASON v. USPS 7

processes and delivers and that the Postal Service has elsewhere conceded that the improper scanning resulted in 

nothing more than “an inconvenience.” Appellant’s Br. 27, 

30. The Board rejected this argument, instead finding that 

Mr. Kelly properly found Mr. Amason’s misconduct to be 

serious, noting that it violated customers’ trust and was at 

odds with his obligation as a postmaster. See Decision at 

19–20; J.A. 41 ¶ 2; J.A. 183 ¶ 9a. The Board also explained 

that improper scans resulted in numerous customer complaints regarding inaccurate tracking information and confusion as to the location of their mail. Decision at 19–20; 

see also J.A. 41 ¶ 7; J.A. 184 ¶ 9c; J.A. 96–152. We see no 

error in the Board’s analysis. 

Mr. Amason additionally argues that Mr. Kelly’s finding of no hope of rehabilitation was not supported by substantial evidence, citing his long tenure as a Postal Service

employee without prior discipline. Appellant’s Br. 30; see 

also id. at 26–27. But the Board concluded that Mr. Kelly 

considered these factors but found them outweighed by the 

seriousness of Mr. Amason’s conduct, particularly in light 

of his supervisory role. Decision at 19; J.A. 41 ¶¶ 3–4; 

J.A. 184–85 ¶¶ 9d, 9i. Here too, we do not see any error in 

the Board’s analysis.

We “will not disturb a choice of penalty within the 

agency’s discretion unless the severity of the agency’s action appears totally unwarranted in light of all the factors.” 

Mings v. Dep’t of Just., 813 F.2d 384, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding 

that the penalty is reasonable, we will not disturb it.

III. CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Amason’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 7 Filed: 04/02/2024