NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3016

RICHARD L. SCHUSTER, Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Richard L. Schuster , of Broomfield, Colorado, pro se. Roger A. Hipp , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz , Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson , Director; and Kirk T. Manhardt , Assistant Director. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3016 RICHARD L. SCHUSTER, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DE0731060486-I-1.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: March 7, 2008

__________________________ Before MAYER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges and YOUNG, District Judge .* PER CURIAM. Richard L. Schuster seeks review of th e final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Schuster v. Office of Personnel Management , DE-0731-06-0486-I-1 (April 17, 2007), affirming his removal from t he Internal Revenue Service (“agency”).
We affirm

. This court’s review of a boar d decision is limited by statut e. We must affirm such a decision unless it is arbitrary, capric ious, an abuse of discr etion, otherwise not in

_______________ ___________

* Honorable William G. Young, District Judge, Unit ed States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.accordance with law, obtai ned without required procedur es, or not supported by substantial evidenc e. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Hayes v. Department of Navy , 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the board’s determination that Schuster made a material, false statemen t when he applied for federal employment, and was therefore properly removed from his position with the agency. When he applied for employment at the agency in 2004, Schuster checked “no” in response to a question on Standard Form 85P regarding w hether he had ever left a job “under unfavorable circumstances.” During a background investig ation, however, it was discovered that he had resign ed from a prior employer, Qwes t Corporation, while being investigated for bringi ng a firearm to work. The board properly determined that Sc huster resigned from Qwest “under unfavorable circumstances.” On December 20, 2002, Schuster came to work with a firearm. He was informed by his manager that an investigation would be conducted because possession of a firearm was prohibi ted by company policy. His company badge was taken away and he was placed on o ff-duty status and instru cted to go home. Four days later, Schuster submitted his resignation. Schuster contends that he resigned from his position at Qwest because he did
not like the work environm ent at the company. The board correctly determined, however, that although Schuster may have had additional reasons for resigning from Qwest, the “tipping point” for his resignation was that he was under investigation for the firearm incident. The board did not find Schuste r “credible in his cl aim that he left Qwest under favorable circumstances,” and the board’s credibility determinations are

2008-3016 22008-3016 3 accorded great weight by this court. See Rogers v. Office of Personnel Management , 87 F.3d 471, 471 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Schuster argues that any false statement s were made negligently rather than intentionally. The firearm incident, howev er, occurred only eighteen months prior to the time he applied for employment at the agency. Thus, as the board correctly noted, the circumstances surrounding Schust er’s removal should have bee n “fresh in his memory” and failure to disclose them was likely intentional rather than negligent. On appeal, Schuster contends that the bo ard should have considered the fact that he was taking medications for injuries su stained during his milit ary service when he submitted his employment app lication. He fails to es tablish, however, that the medications he was taking prevented him from accurately completing Standard Form
85P. Accordingly the decision of the board is affirmed

.