NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CALVIN DONNEL HARDISON,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3082

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0731-14-0552-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: August 5, 2015

______________________ 

CALVIN DONNEL HARDISON, Washington, DC, pro se.

GREGG PARIS YATES, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., DEBORAH 

A. BYNUM. 

 ______________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
2 HARDISON v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Calvin Donnel Hardison (“Hardison”) appeals from 

the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the 

“Board”), which affirmed the decision of the Office of 

Personnel Management (“OPM”) to separate Hardison

from Federal service, cancel his eligibilities, and debar 

him from competition for or appointment to any covered 

position for three years. See Hardison v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., No. DC-0731-14-0552-I-1, 2014 WL 7045075 

(M.S.P.B. Dec. 10, 2014) (“Decision”). Because the Board 

did not err in affirming OPM’s decision, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

From June 2012 to April 2013, Hardison was employed by Adrian L. Merton, Inc. (“ALM”) as a laborer. 

On April 24, 2013, he was involuntarily terminated from 

employment for excessive absences.

On April 29, 2013, Hardison submitted Form OF 306, 

Declaration for Federal Employment, as part of his application for employment with the Federal government. 

Question 12 of that form asks: 

During the last 5 years, have you been fired from 

any job for any reason, did you quit after being 

told that you would be fired, did you leave any job 

by mutual agreement because of specific problems, or were you debarred from Federal employment by the Office of Personnel Management or 

any other Federal agency? If “YES,” use item 16 

to provide the date, an explanation of the problem, 

reason for leaving, and the employer’s name and 

address.

Resp’t’s App. 20. Hardison answered “no” to that question 

without revealing his involuntary termination from ALM. 

Id. He signed the form manually and certified that his 

answers were “true, correct, complete, and made in good 

faith.” Id. at 21.
HARDISON v. OPM 3

On June 2, 2013, the Department of the Interior appointed Hardison to a temporary position as a Maintenance Worker with the National Park Service (“NPS”). 

On June 3, 2013, during new-employee in-processing, he

signed Form OF 306 a second time without changing his 

answer to Question 12. Id. at 37–38. In September 2013, 

Hardison submitted Form OF 306 to apply for another 

Federal position; he again answered “no” to Question 12

and signed the form a third time. Id. at 40–41. 

As part of the Federal hiring process, NPS requested 

a background investigation. In October 2013, OPM 

notified Hardison that its investigation uncovered “a 

serious question concerning [his] suitability for Federal 

service” relating to his “[m]isconduct or negligence in 

employment” with ALM and his “[m]aterial, intentional 

false statement” on Form OF 306. Id. at 42. He responded to those charges. After considering his responses, 

OPM decided to separate him from Federal service, cancel 

his eligibilities, and debar him from competition for or 

appointment to any covered position for three years. Id.

at 58. On March 25, 2014, Hardison was separated from 

Federal service. He then appealed to the Board.

The Administrative Judge (“AJ”) issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s decision. Decision at 1. First, the 

AJ found that Hardison engaged in misconduct or negligence in employment because it was undisputed that he 

was terminated from ALM for excessive absences and his 

absenteeism constituted employment misconduct. Id. at 

6. Second, the AJ noted that Hardison did not challenge

the finding that he failed to disclose his termination from 

ALM on Form OF 306; instead, he argued that the mistake was unintentional. Id. at 9. The AJ found, however,

that he “was on notice and was told to complete a new OF 

306 with new, updated information” on June 3, 2013, id.

at 9–10, that he signed the form physically “with wet 

signature” on all three occasions, id. at 10, and that “his 

omission of a significant fact (not just omission, but 
4 HARDISON v. OPM

affirmative statement to the contrary) relating to termination from employment was repeated multiple times,” id. 

The AJ thus agreed with OPM that Hardison’s failure to 

correct and update Form OF 306 was intentional. Id. 

Accordingly, the AJ found that OPM proved both charges

by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Hardison did not file a petition for review by the full 

Board, and the AJ’s decision thus became the final decision of the Board. Hardison timely appealed from the 

Board’s decision to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Board decision is limited. We may only set aside the Board’s 

decision if it was “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 

(2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or 

regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by 

substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “Substantial 

evidence” is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Dickey 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 419 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 

229 (1938)). 

Hardison argues that he did not intentionally falsify 

his answer to Question 12 on Form OF 306. He maintains that the form was completed before his termination 

from ALM and that he then used the same form for various job applications. He asserts that his failure to update 

the form was merely an oversight. The government 

responds that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

finding that Hardison intentionally omitted his adverse 

employment history on Form OF 306. Additionally, the 

government contends that OPM’s action was also based 

on misconduct or negligence in employment that Hardison 

does not challenge on appeal. 
HARDISON v. OPM 5

We agree with the government that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Hardison made 

material, intentional false statements on Form OF 306. It 

is undisputed that, after he was involuntarily terminated 

from employment with ALM, Hardison signed and submitted Form OF 306 on three occasions without updating 

the form to reveal the involuntary termination. Intent to 

deceive may be proven directly or derived from circumstantial evidence. Naekel v. Dep’t of Transp., 782 F.2d 

975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Board found, on each of 

those occasions, he manually signed the form with a “wet”

signature and certified that his answers were true, correct, complete, and made in good faith. Decision at 10. 

The Board found that those certifying signatures support

a finding that he signed the forms with the intent to 

conceal his adverse employment history. Id. Moreover, 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

Hardison was on notice that he ought to update Form OF 

306 with new information and certify that it was correct 

at the time he entered service on June 3, 2013. Id. at 9–

10. We therefore conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that Hardison intentionally 

omitted his adverse employment history with ALM on 

Form OF 306. The Board thus did not err in sustaining 

OPM’s charge of material, intentional false statement. 

Additionally, we agree with the government that 

OPM’s decision was also supported by the separate charge 

of misconduct or negligence in employment for excessive 

absences, which Hardison does not challenge on appeal. 

As the Board noted, there are few things more basic to the 

employer-employee relationship than the employee’s duty 

to report to work as expected. Id. at 6. The Board thus 

did not err in finding that Hardison’s excessive absenteeism at ALM constituted employment misconduct. We 

therefore conclude that the Board correctly affirmed 

OPM’s decision on this additional ground.
6 HARDISON v. OPM

CONCLUSION

We have considered Hardison’s remaining arguments, 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

the decision of the Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.