UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

ANGELIA PRIM,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-0752-14-0025-I-1

DATE: November 21, 2014

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Angelia Prim, Loxley, Alabama, pro se.

Barry D. Thorpe, Miami, Florida, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

affirmed the appellant’s removal. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one 

only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; the 

initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the 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. See Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this 

appeal, and based on the following points and authorities, we conclude that the 

petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the 

petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM 

the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113(b). 

¶2 The agency removed the appellant for failure to maintain a regular work 

schedule. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 23, 26. The agency’s charge 

specified six instances when the appellant was late without authorization. Id. at 

26. In deciding to remove the appellant, the agency also considered her prior 

discipline for attendance problems, which resulted in two 14-day suspensions on 

February 19, 2013, and June 25, 2013, a letter of warning on February 16, 2012, 

and a 7-day suspension on December 12, 2012. Id. at 24, 26. 

¶3 The appellant filed an appeal of her removal and raised affirmative defenses 

alleging gender discrimination, disability discrimination (failure to 

accommodate), and harmful procedural error. IAF, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 6 at 2. The 

administrative judge issued an order informing the appellant of her burden of 

proof on her affirmative defenses, and she responded. IAF, Tabs 6, 19. After 

holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge found that the agency 

proved its charge of failure to maintain a regular work schedule and affirmed the 

agency’s removal decision. IAF, Tab 51, Initial Decision (ID). The 

administrative judge also found that the appellant failed to prove her affirmative 
3

defenses, the agency proved nexus, and the removal penalty was reasonable. ID 

at 5, 7-15. 

¶4 The appellant filed a petition for review, consisting of one paragraph in 

which she expresses her general disagreement with the administrative judge’s 

decision and findings of fact. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3. The 

appellant does not specifically dispute any of the charged misconduct. We have

considered the appellant’s nonspecific arguments challenging the administrative 

judge’s findings of fact, and we discern no reason to reweigh the evidence or 

substitute our assessment of the record evidence for that of the administrative 

judge in this appeal. See PFR File, Tab 4 at 6-15; see also Crosby v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997) (finding no reason to disturb the 

administrative judge’s findings when the administrative judge considered the 

evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned 

conclusions); Broughton v. Department of Health & Human Services, 33 M.S.P.R. 

357, 359 (1987) (same). 

¶5 On review, the appellant also challenges the administrative judge’s finding 

that she failed to prove her affirmative defense of disability discrimination based 

on the agency’s alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation for her 

medical condition of narcolepsy. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3; IAF, Tab 19. In support 

of her petition for review, the appellant argues that everyone in the agency knew 

about her disability. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. It is undisputed that, when the agency

hired the appellant in 2007, a physician certified that she did not require 

accommodation because her narcolepsy was controlled. ID at 8; IAF, Tab 5 at 77. 

The appellant has not submitted any new evidence or argument showing that: 

(1) her condition of narcolepsy was no longer controlled, (2) her condition caused 

her unscheduled absences on the relevant dates, or (3) the administrative judge 

erred in finding that the appellant failed to establish that she was disabled 
4

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(1)(i) or (ii). 2 ID at 9. We therefore find that 

the appellant has not shown that the administrative judge erred in finding that she 

failed to prove her affirmative defense of disability discrimination. Based on the 

foregoing, we deny the appellant’s petition for review.

3

 ID at 1, 7-15. 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request further review of this final decision.

Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review

You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination 

claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See Title 5 

of the United States Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you 

submit your request by regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is:

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit your request 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, NE

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after 

your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your 

 2 In pertinent part, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(1) generally defines a person with a disability 

as an individual with: (i) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one 

or more of the major life activities of such individual; or (ii) a record of such an 

impairment. 

3 Although the appellant attempted to raise additional arguments on review, they are 

unintelligible and, as such, present no basis for disturbing the initial decision affirming 

her removal. 
5

representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no 

later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to 

file, be very careful to file on time.

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action

If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your 

discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your 

discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States 

district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with 

the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If 

you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order 

before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar 

days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to 

file on time. If the action involves a claim of 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, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 

29 U.S.C. § 794a.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board