N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

STEPHAN EVANS, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

______________________

2012

- 3190

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF

- 0752

- 10

- 0966 -I- 2.

______________________
Decided: January 8 , 2015

______________________

K EITH G OFFNEY , Law Offices of Keith Goffney, of Los Angeles, California, for petitioner.

H ILLARY A. S TERN , Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depar tment of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Assistant Atto rney General, B RYANT S NEE , Acting Director, and M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R

. , Assistant Director.EVANS v. USPS 2

______________________
Before L OURIE , D YK , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. St ephan Evans seeks review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”). The Board den i ed his appeal of a decision by the United States Postal Service (“ the USPS”) remov ing him from his pos ition as a safety specialist

. We affirm.

I

Evans worked for the USPS for the better part of twenty years, beginning in 1994. In 2006, he held the position of Safety Specialist. That position required him
to visit various post office facilities to conduct building inspections, audits, and accident investigations. In 2004, Evans applied for and received a Citibank Government Travel card, which may only be used for official travel and must be paid “in full each month .” Pet itioner’s App. 110.
In March of 2010, the USPS Office of Inspector Ge neral r eceived information that Evans had misused his government card. After an investigation, the USPS removed Evans on the grounds of 1) misuse of his go vernment

- issued travel card, 2) failure to pay his gover nment

- issued travel card charges in a timely manner , 3) false statements made during a government investigation, and 4) misuse of work and sick leave status. Evans appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which affirmed the USPS action.

On review here

, Evans challenges the sufficiency of the evi dence to support the charges

.EVANS v. USPS 3

II

We conclude that t here was substantial evidence to support the charges. With respect to the charge of misuse of a government

- issued credit card, t he investigative report found

, inter alia

, that Evans incurred charges totaling approximately $2,292.94 on his card, including a charge for $1,053.99 at a casino and two cash advances totaling $1,200 , which were used in part for personal

expenses

. This was in violation of his cardholder agre ement, which required him to only use the card for official travel. Evans admits that some of the money was wit hdrawn to pay for his nephew’s medical emergency

. With respect to the charge of failing to pay his card balance at the end of each month

, Evans admits that he failed to timely pay his c redit card, as required by the cardholder agreement

. With respect to the charge of lying during a government investigation, there is substantial evidence that he lied because, inter alia

, in one investigative inte rview, he asserted that he had cut up his governmentissued card, but in a follow

- up interview, he admitted that he still had it. With respect to the charge of misusing sick leave, there is substantial evidence to support the charge ; t he government produced evidence that Evans had visited a casin o a nd gambled while on sick leave.

Evans challenges the Board’s credibility determin ations . He argues, for example, that his “testimony that he never visited a casino while his status was On

- Duty should have been credited by the administrative judge as more probative than the unreliable casino records and [ the USPS’s Time and Attendance Control System ] data. ” Pet itioner’s Br. 28. Credibility determinations are largely unreviewable

, Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy , 754 F.2d 361 , 364 (Fed. Cir. 1985), an d Evans has provided no basis for overturning the Board’s credibility determin ations

.EVANS v. USPS 4

III

Evans also argues that his punishment should have been mitigated for a number of reasons. He argues, for example, that his misuse of the Citibank card was not for

pe rsonal gain because it was for his nephew’s medical
emergency; that he did not know he was required to pay the card off each month ; that his false statements made to the investigators about his use of the card were immat erial ; and that the mere fact that h e was too sick to work did not mean it was inappropriate to “visit[] a casino during his convalescence

. ” Pet itioner’s Br. 28. When reviewing an agency ’s penalty determination, w e will disturb that determination only if the punishment , in light of the evi dence, is “totally unwarranted.” See La c hance v. Devall , 178 F.3d 1246, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ( citation s omitted)

. In light of the severity and numeros ity of the charges, we find no basis for disturbing th e determination that removal was an appropriate punis hment.

AF FIRMED

C OSTS

No costs.