NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-3009 SANDRA D. ROBINSON, Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent.

__________________________ DECIDED: April 7, 2005

__________________________

Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. DECISION Sandra D. Robinson petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that sustained the action of the Department of the Treasury (“agency”) removing her from her position as a Contact Representative GS-0962-8 in the Internal Revenue Service’s do wntown Houston, Texas office. Robinson v. Dep’t of the Treasury , No. DA-0752-03-0305-I-1 (M. S.P.B. Aug. 4, 2004) (“ Final Decision ”). We affirm

.DISCUSSI ON
I. The agenc y removed Ms. Robinson from her position based upon a charge of being absent without official leav e (“AWOL”) fr om February 18, 2002, to June 10, 2002. Following a hearing, t he administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was assigned issued an initial decision su staining the removal. Robinson v. Dep’t of the Treasury , No. DA-0752-03-0305-I-1 (M.S.P. B. July 14, 2003) (“ Initial Dec i sion ”). The Initial Decis i on became the final dec ision of the Board on August 4, 2004, after the Board denied Ms

. Robinson’s petition for review for failure to meet the crit eria set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II. Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Specifica lly , we must affirm the Board’s d e ci sion unless we find it to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discret ion, or otherwise not in a ccordanc e with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by substantial evid ence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Kewley v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Ms. Robins on’s first ar gument on appeal is t hat the agency failed t o comply with Section 3( c)(2) of Article 34 of the labor agreement between the National Treasury Employees Union and the agency. Sect ion 3(c)(2) provides as follows: If reasonable grounds continue to exist f o r questioning an employee’s use of sick leave, the Employer may request that the employee provide a doc tor’s certificate from the employee’s physic i an. This certif ication will indicate that the

05-3009 2employee is under the care of physician [sic], is incapac itated for dut y, and the expected duration of such incapac itation. If specific medical infor m ation such as diagnosis and prognosis is requested as part of such explanation, the employee may choose to provide this information to the Employer representatives who are medically certified.
The Board found that, with respect to the period for which she was found to be AWOL, Ms. Robinson informed her superviso r that she would only provide medica l documentation to qualified medi cal personnel. In response, the supervis o r told Ms. Robinson t o obtain the documen tation and submit it to the union’s medical doctor, so that he could provide the appropriate document ation to support a change of AWOL t o Leave Without Pay (“LWOP”). The Board found that Ms. Robinson failed to provide the union’s medical doctor with the required medical documentation. On appeal, Ms. Robinson has failed t o make any effort to show that she provided the agency with the appropriate medical documentat ion. We see no error in the Board’s ruling. Ms. Robinson’s sec o nd argum ent on ap peal is that the agency committed harmful error by violat ing a provision in its Time and Attendance Handbook relating to LWOP. The provision states that employee s do not have the right to be granted LWOP. Howev e r, it carves out an exc eption to t hat rule fo r employees who are receiving benefits under the program adm inistered by the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”). The record reflects that Ms. Robins o n was receiving OWCP benefits in the amount of twenty hour s per week, and that she
was approv ed by OWCP to work twenty hours per week.

05-3009 3The agenc y’s removal action was based on Ms. Robinson’s failure to report to work for the twenty hours per week that sh e was sc heduled to work during the perio d February 18, 2002 through June 7, 2002. Ms. R obinson’s claim of harmful error appears to be that the agency ch arged her with being AWOL fo r a period of time when she was entitled to LWOP because of the condition she had that was covered by OWCP benefits. The record shows that Ms. Robinson fil ed a “reoccurrence” claim with OWCP in December of 2001. The claim lis ted the date and time of the “reoccurrence” as Novem ber 30, 2001. OWCP denied the claim on February 15, 200 2, because M s

. Robinson failed to submit evidence sufficient to support the claim. The Board rejected Ms. Robinson’s harmful error cl aim arisin g from the December 2001 “reoccurrence” claim. 1 It did so on two grounds: (1) because the claim bore no connection to the period for which Ms. Robinson was charged with being AW OL (February 18, 2002 – June 7, 2002) and (ii) becaus e the T i me and Attendance Handbook prov ision relating to LWO P upon whic h Ms. Robinson relies states that “ nothing in these regulations reliev e s the employee of the responsibility for pr operly requesting leave and d o cumenting absences.” The Board’s decis ion is supported by substantial evidence. In addition, Ms. Robinson has failed t o establish error in the Board’s determination that the agency di d not engage in harmful error. For the foregoing reasons, the final dec ision of the Board s u staining Ms. Robinson’s removal is affirmed. No costs.

1 Our best understanding is that Ms. Robinson’s c o ntention is that the condition giving rise to her De cember 2001 claim to OWCP carri ed over to the period for which she was deemed to be AWOL. 05-3009 4