NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 

______________________ 

KEITH GOFFNEY, Law Offices of Keith Goffney, of Los 

Angeles, California, for petitioner. 

HILLARY A. STERN, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With 

her on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney General, BRYANT SNEE, Acting Director, and MARTIN 

F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. 
2 EVANS v. USPS

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Stephan Evans seeks review of a decision by the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“the Board”). The Board 

denied his appeal of a decision by the United States 

Postal Service (“the USPS”) removing him from his position 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.” Petitioner’s App. 110. 

In March of 2010, the USPS Office of Inspector General received information that Evans had misused his 

government card. After an investigation, the USPS 

removed Evans on the grounds of 1) misuse of his government-issued travel card, 2) failure to pay his government-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 evidence to support the charges.
EVANS v. USPS 3

II

We conclude that there was substantial evidence to 

support the charges. With respect to the charge of misuse 

of a government-issued credit card, the 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 agreement, which required him to only use the card for official 

travel. Evans admits that some of the money was withdrawn 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 credit 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 interview, 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; 

the government produced evidence that Evans had visited 

a casino and gambled while on sick leave.

Evans challenges the Board’s credibility determinations. 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.” 

Petitioner’s Br. 28. Credibility determinations are largely 

unreviewable, Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 

361, 364 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and Evans has provided no 

basis for overturning the Board’s credibility determinations. 
4 EVANS v. USPS

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 

personal 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 immaterial; and that the mere fact that he was too sick to work 

did not mean it was inappropriate to “visit[] a casino 

during his convalescence.” Petitioner’s Br. 28. When 

reviewing an agency’s penalty determination, we will 

disturb that determination only if the punishment, in 

light of the evidence, is “totally unwarranted.” See 

Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

(citations omitted). In light of the severity and numerosity of the charges, we find no basis for disturbing the 

determination that removal was an appropriate punishment.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.