UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

TERRY L. STEELE,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

DC-1221-19-0379-W-1

DATE: July 3, 2024

THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

August Bequai, Esquire, McLean, Virginia, for the appellant.

Trent Buatte, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

Henry J. Kerner, Member*

*Member Kerner did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

REMAND ORDER

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

dismissed his individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For

the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review,

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 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).
VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND the case to the Washington Regional

Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order. 

BACKGROUND

The appellant filed an IRA appeal alleging that the agency lowered his

annual performance appraisal in retaliation for the following two disclosures:

(1) his supervisor failed to give him a mid-year performance review in violation

of agency rules and regulations; and (2) agency officials within Overseas

Buildings Operations (OBO) made false statements on a Contract Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) review of a contractor’s project in

Afghanistan. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 26-29, Tab 5 at 4-9. He

requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1 at 4. 

The administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 8. He found that the appellant’s first

disclosure concerning whether the agency conducted a mid-year performance

review, and if so, when it occurred, was about nothing more than a factual error

or mistake regarding the date of the undocumented review that was corrected by

the appellant’s first-line supervisor immediately after the appellant brought the

error to his attention, and the appellant did not object to the corrected date. ID

at 5. He also found that failure to document a mid-year performance review on a

certain agency form, assuming such a failure took place, is of such a trivial nature

that the appellant could not have reasonably believed that the agency was

violating a law, rule, or regulation. ID at 5-6. Additionally, the administrative

judge found that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that he made a

protected disclosure when he expressed his disagreement with the rating of an

agency contractor’s performance. ID at 6. He found that the appellant failed to

make a nonfrivolous allegation that the contractor’s unsatisfactory rating

amounted to gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, or an abuse of

authority. ID at 6-7.

2
In his petition for review, 2

 the appellant contends that the administrative

judge erred in finding that the appellant merely disclosed that his supervisor

misidentified the date of the appellant’s mid-year performance review when his

complaint involved his supervisor directing him to sign a document, thus

acknowledging that a mid-year performance had happened when it had not.

Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 2 at 7-8. He also asserts that the

administrative judge erred in finding that the appellant merely disagreed with

management’s proposal to rate a contractor’s performance as unsatisfactory. The

appellant maintains that he disclosed that a CPARS review had been falsified to

cover up management’s incompetence and waste of agency resources. Id. at 8.3

The agency has responded to the appellant’s petition for review, PFR File, Tab 4,

and the appellant has replied to the response, PFR File, Tab 5. 

ANALYSIS

The Board has jurisdiction over an IRA appeal if the appellant has

exhausted his administrative remedies before OSC and makes nonfrivolous

allegations that (1) he made a protected disclosure described under 5 U.S.C.

§ 2302(b)(8) or engaged in protected activity described under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)

(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D), and (2) the disclosure or protected activity was a

2

 Attached to the appellant’s petition for review are numerous documents. Because we

are remanding this appeal for further proceedings, we need not discuss the appellant’s

petition-for-review submissions. The appellant will have the opportunity to offer these

documents into the record on remand consistent with the Board’s regulations and the

administrative judge’s instructions.

3

 In his petition, the appellant contends that the administrative judge improperly relied

on Graves v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 123 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 22 (2016), and

Morrall v. Department of Defense, 97 M.S.P.R. 378, ¶ 5 (2004), because of factual

differences between those cases and his. PFR File, Tab 2 at 3. However, the

administrative judge properly relied on Graves for the point of law that there is no

statutory right to a jurisdictional hearing in an IRA appeal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1221

and on Morrall for the point of law that the Board’s jurisdiction in an IRA appeal is

determined based on the written record. ID at 2. The factual differences between those

cases and this appeal are not relevant to the proposition for which the administrative

judge cited the cases. 

3
contributing factor in the agency’s decision to take or fail to take a personnel

action as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a). Kerrigan v. Department of Labor,

122 M.S.P.R. 545, ¶ 10 n.2 (2015) (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214(a)(3), 1221(e)(1)),

aff’d, 833 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Yunus v. Department of Veterans Affairs,

242 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A disclosure made to a person who

participated in the activity that is the subject of the disclosure or a disclosure

made during the normal course of duties of an employee is not excluded from an

IRA claim. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8); Day v. Department of Homeland Security,

119 M.S.P.R. 589, ¶¶ 18-26 (2013). Once an appellant establishes jurisdiction

over his IRA appeal, he is entitled to a hearing on the merits of his claim.

Rebstock Consolidation v. Department of Homeland Security, 122 M.S.P.R. 661,

¶ 9 (2015). 

A nonfrivolous allegation of a protected whistleblowing disclosure is an

allegation of facts that, if proven, would show that the appellant disclosed a

matter that a reasonable person in his position would believe evidenced one of the

categories of wrongdoing specified in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). Mudd v.

Department of Veterans Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 8 (2013). The categories of

wrongdoing specified in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) are the following: a violation of

any law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an

abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

See Linder v. Department of Justice, 122 M.S.P.R. 14, ¶ 12 (2014). The test to

determine whether a putative whistleblower has a reasonable belief in the

disclosure is an objective one: whether a disinterested observer with knowledge

of the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable by the employee could

reasonably conclude that the actions of the agency evidenced one of the

categories of wrongdoing set forth above. Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378,

1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Linder, 122 M.S.P.R. 14, ¶ 12. The disclosure must be

specific and detailed, not a vague allegation of wrongdoing. Linder,

122 M.S.P.R. 14, ¶ 14; Rzucidlo v. Department of the Army, 101 M.S.P.R. 616,

4
¶ 13 (2006); Keefer v. Department of Agriculture, 82 M.S.P.R. 687, ¶ 11 (1999).

Any doubt or ambiguity as to whether the appellant made nonfrivolous

jurisdictional allegations should be resolved in favor of finding jurisdiction.

Rzucidlo, 101 M.S.P.R. 616, ¶ 14. 

The parties do not dispute, and we find no reason to disturb, the

administrative judge’s finding that the appellant exhausted his administrative

remedies before OSC based on his allegation that he was being retaliated against

for whistleblowing disclosures. ID at 5 n.2; IAF, Tab 1 at 76-82; see 5 U.S.C.

§ 1214(a)(3)(B).4 However, as explained below, we find that the administrative

judge erred in finding that the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation

that he disclosed a matter that a reasonable person in his position would believe

evidenced a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).

The appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that he made a protected disclosure

that his supervisor failed to give him a mid-year performance review in violation

of agency regulations.

The appellant has consistently alleged that he disclosed that his supervisor

failed to give him a mid-year performance review in violation of agency

regulations. In a submission to OSC, the appellant stated that there was “not any

mid-year review.” IAF, Tab 1 at 28. Again, in his response to the administrative

judge’s jurisdictional order, the appellant repeated his statement that there was

“not any mid-year review.” IAF, Tab 5 at 7. Moreover, the appellant identified

the agency regulatory provision violated by a supervisory failure to give an

employee a mid-year performance review. Id. at 9. 

The administrative judge, however, characterized the appellant’s disclosure

as a difference between himself and his supervisor about the date that the

mid-year performance review took place. ID at 5. The administrative judge

4

 OSC at first stated that the appellant received his performance appraisal before May

2017. IAF, Tab 1 at 78 n.1. Subsequently, however, OSC corrected the record to note

that the appellant’s appraisal was first entered on July 27, 2017, id. at 76, and that thus,

the appellant’s alleged disclosures predated his appraisal and he had exhausted his

administrative procedures regarding them.

5
found that the appellant’s disclosure appeared to concern nothing more than a

factual error or mistake about the date of the mid-year performance review that

was corrected by his first-line supervisor immediately after it was brought to his

attention by the appellant. Id. In support of this finding, the administrative judge

relied on the agency’s submission of email documentation from February 2017

reflecting that the appellant and his supervisor discussed when the mid-year

performance review was held, and that, although the appellant’s supervisor first

noted it took place in September 2016, after discussion with the appellant, he

changed course and noted it occurred in June 2016. Id. 

In determining whether the appellant has made a nonfrivolous allegation of

jurisdiction entitling him to a hearing, the administrative judge may consider the

agency’s documentary submissions; however, to the extent that the agency’s

evidence constitutes mere factual contradiction of the appellant’s otherwise

adequate prima facie showing of jurisdiction, the administrative judge may not

weigh evidence and resolve conflicting assertions of the parties, and the agency’s

evidence may not be dispositive. Ferdon v. U.S. Postal Service, 60 M.S.P.R. 325,

329 (1994). Here, the administrative judge erroneously relied on the agency’s

evidence to determine that the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation

of retaliation for making a protected disclosure. The agency’s evidence showing

that the appellant’s supervisor changed the date that he represented that the

mid-year performance review occurred constitutes mere factual contradiction of

the appellant’s allegation that his supervisor violated agency regulations by

failing to give the appellant any mid-year performance review before giving the

appellant his final appraisal. 

There is no de minimis exception for a disclosure involving a violation of

law, rule, or regulation falling within the scope of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A)(i).

Fisher v. Environmental Protection Agency, 108 M.S.P.R. 296, ¶ 9 (2008).

Accordingly, we find that, through his written submissions, the appellant made a

nonfrivolous allegation that he had a reasonable belief that his supervisor failed

6
to give him a mid-year performance review and that such failure evidenced a

violation of rule, or regulation. 

The appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that his purported protected

disclosure that his supervisor failed to give him a mid-year performance review in

violation of agency regulations was a contributing factor in the agency’s decision

to lower his annual performance appraisal.

To satisfy the contributing factor criterion at the jurisdictional stage of an

IRA appeal, the appellant only need raise a nonfrivolous allegation that the fact

or the content of the protected disclosure was one factor that tended to affect the

personnel action in any way. Salerno v. Department of the Interior, 123 M.S.P.R.

230, ¶ 13 (2016). One way to establish this criterion is the knowledge/timing

test, under which an employee may nonfrivolously allege that the disclosure was

a contributing factor in a personnel action through circumstantial evidence, such

as evidence that the official who took the personnel action knew of the disclosure

and that the personnel action occurred within a period of time such that a

reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor in

the personnel action. Id. An appellant may meet the knowledge portion of the

knowledge/timing test by showing that the official taking the action had

constructive knowledge of the protected disclosure, even if the official lacked

actual knowledge, by demonstrating that an individual with actual knowledge of

the disclosure influenced the official accused of taking the retaliatory action. See

Nasuti v. Department of State, 120 M.S.P.R. 588, ¶ 7 (2014). 

Here, the appellant alleged that, in February 2017, his supervisor asked him

to acknowledge receipt of the mid-year performance review, and he denied that

such review had occurred and expressed his view that the supervisor’s failure to

give him a mid-year review was a violation of agency regulations. IAF, Tab 1

at 28. Further, in May 2017, the appellant met with the human resources office.

The meeting was memorialized in writing, and the appellant submitted that

document into the record. Id. at 58-60. According to that document, the Human

7
Resources Branch Chief stated that she would follow up with the appellant’s

supervisor regarding the appellant’s issues with his appraisal. Id. at 60. 

Under these circumstances, the appellant has nonfrivolously alleged that

his supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge of his disclosure. Further,

the appellant received his performance appraisal in July 2017, about 5 months

after his meeting with his supervisor and about 2 months after his meeting with

human resource officials. Given this timing, the personnel action occurred within

a period of time such that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure

was a contributing factor in the personnel action. See Benton-Flores v.

Department of Defense, 121 M.S.P.R. 428, ¶ 13 (2014) (finding that a gap of less

than 6 months between a disclosure and a personnel action is sufficiently

proximate to satisfy the timing prong of the knowledge/timing test). Thus, the

appellant has established jurisdiction over his assertion that the agency retaliated

against him for his disclosure that his supervisor failed to give him a mid-year

performance review.

The appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that he made a protected disclosure

that agency officials made false statements on the CPARS review of a contractor.

The appellant also consistently alleged that he disclosed that agency

officials falsified the CPARS review of a specific contractor. Shortly after he

learned of the proposed unsuccessful rating for the contractor in February 2016,

the appellant told his second-level supervisor that the CPARS comments were

false. IAF, Tab 1 at 36. Additionally, the human resources office record of the

May 2017 discussion with the appellant shows that the appellant disclosed that

his supervisor was trying to get the appellant to falsify the CPARS review for a

specific project in Afghanistan. Id. at 58. 

As noted, the administrative judge characterized the appellant’s alleged

disclosure as a disagreement with the rating of a contractor’s performance. ID

at 6. He found that the appellant failed to show that the disagreement established

one of the types of wrongdoing set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). ID at 6-8. The

8
administrative judge’s finding, however, failed to consider the appellant’s

phrasing of his allegation, that the CPARS review was falsified, and whether the

appellant’s falsification allegation constituted a reasonable belief of a violation of

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). 

The record shows that the appellant explained the basis for his belief that

the CPARS review was falsified, i.e., that he had different information about the

contractor that did not support the unsatisfactory ratings in the CPARS review,

apparently gleaned from his three trips to Afghanistan. IAF, Tab 1 at 58, Tab 5

at 8. The appellant also supports his assertion that he had a reasonable belief that

the CPARS review was falsified by reference to his position with the agency

involving highly specialized expertise in international construction, IAF, Tab 1

at 28, and his observation that the CPARS review did not match up with OBO

facilities reports or his own observations, id. at 36. Nothing in the record

contradicts the appellant’s assertion that he was in a position to observe the

contractor during his trips to Afghanistan, validating the reasonableness of his

belief that the CPARS review was falsified. See Johns v. Department of Veterans

Affairs, 95 M.S.P.R. 106, ¶¶ 9-10 (2003) (finding that the appellant made a

nonfrivolous allegation of a protected disclosure because the appellant based his

disclosures on his first-hand detailed observations). Under these circumstances,

we find that the appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that he had a reasonable

belief that the CPARS review was falsified, constituting a violation of § 2302(b)

(8). See Reeves v. Department of the Army, 99 M.S.P.R. 153, ¶ 14 (2005)

(finding that, because the appellant was allegedly required to qualify with and

maintain proficiency in the use of a firearm, a reasonable person with his

knowledge could conclude that his allegations regarding falsification of weapons

qualifications scores evidenced a violation of law or an abuse of authority). 

9
The appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that his purported protected

disclosure that agency officials made false statements on the CPARS review of a

contractor was a contributing factor in the agency’s decision to lower his annual

performance appraisal.

Applying the knowledge/timing method of showing contributing factor, the

appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation of contributing factor regarding his

allegation that the agency falsified the CPARS review. He asserted that he copied

his supervisor on memoranda in which he expressed his opinion about the

unsatisfactory CPARS review that was proposed in February 2016, IAF, Tab 1

at 33, 36, and he disclosed the falsification of the CPARS review during his

meeting with the human resources office in May 2017, prompting the Human

Resources Branch Chief to state that she would follow up with the appellant’s

supervisor regarding the appellant’s allegations and complaints. Id. at 60. Thus,

the appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that his supervisor had actual or

constructive knowledge of his disclosure, and he met the knowledge prong of the

knowledge/timing test. See Salerno, 123 M.S.P.R. 230, ¶ 13. Further, his

disclosures occurred within 17 and 2 months, respectively, of his performance

review. Thus, he met the timing prong of the knowledge/timing test. See

Mastrullo v. Department of Labor, 123 M.S.P.R. 110, ¶¶ 18, 21 (2015)

(explaining that the knowledge/timing test allows an employee to demonstrate

that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in a personnel action through

circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that the official taking the personnel

action knew of the disclosure, and that the personnel action occurred within 1 to 2

years of the appellant’s disclosures). Thus, the appellant has established

jurisdiction over his assertion that the agency retaliated against him for his

disclosure that the CPARS review of an agency contractor was falsified. 5

5

 In his petition, the appellant alleges that he made a number of protected disclosures in

addition to disclosing that his supervisor failed to give him a mid-year performance

review in violation of agency regulations and that the agency falsified a CPARS review.

PFR File, Tab 2 at 4-5. However, the appellant failed to show that he exhausted his

administrative remedies regarding these alleged disclosures, and thus they are not

before the Board. See Coufal v. Department of Justice, 98 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 14 (2004)

10
ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, we VACATE the initial decision and

REMAND this case to the Washington Regional Office for the hearing that the

appellant requested and further adjudication in accordance with this Remand

Order.

 

 

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Gina K. Grippando

Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

(stating that the Board's jurisdiction in an IRA appeal is limited to issues raised before

OSC). 

11