NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-3038 

MAYRA R. HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Respondent. 

Mayra R. Hernandez, of Kingwood, Texas, pro se. 

Armando A. Rodriquez-Feo, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

him on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant 

Director. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2009-3038 

MAYRA R. HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

 Respondent. 

 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DA-0752-07-0301-I-2. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: May 8, 2009 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Mayra R. Hernandez appeals the final order of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board denying her petition for review of the initial decision affirming the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (“agency”) action in removing her from the position of Criminal 

Investigator. Hernandez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DA-0752-07-0301-I-2 

(M.S.P.B. Sept. 11, 2008). The board concluded that there was no new, previously 

unavailable, evidence and that the administrative judge made no error in law or 

regulation affecting the outcome. Id.; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). We affirm. 
Hernandez was removed from her position as a Criminal Investigator, effective 

March 9, 2007, on four charges: (1) providing a false statement to assist her mother in 

obtaining U.S. citizenship; (2) making false statements, misstatements, and omissions 

during an official investigation; (3) misusing government equipment; and (4) failing to 

cooperate in an official investigation. The board sustained the agency’s first three 

charges. With respect to charge one, in 2001, Hernandez stated in a sworn affidavit 

that her mother lived with her in the United States for the preceding ten years. 

However, on her 1997 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (“QNSP”), she 

reported her mother’s address as “Rafael Solis, #1101 Colonia Aurora in Matamoras, 

Mexico.” To explain the discrepancy, Hernandez said that her mother used her address 

as a permanent address, and that is why she stated that her mother had lived with her 

for the past ten years, even though she spent some of the same time period living in 

Mexico. 

Regarding charge two, in 2004, Hernandez signed an adoption-related court 

document indicating that she was still married to Aurelio Hernandez, whom she 

divorced in 1997. In 2005, she signed a contradictory affidavit, stating that she and her 

ex-husband never represented themselves to be married since their divorce. She 

defended her actions by stating that she signed the first affidavit without reviewing the 

accompanying documentation. In addition, on a 2003 QNSP Hernandez misstated her 

income for child support payments, and in 2004, she falsely stated that the information 

provided in her 2001 sworn affidavit was true, including the statement that her mother 

lived in the United States since 1980 on a permanent basis. 

2009-3038 2
The agency next charged her with misusing government equipment because an 

agency search of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (“TECS”) 

revealed that she had queried her own name and home address in direct violation of 

TECS rules. Despite formal training and certification on accessing the TECS, she 

denied knowledge that searching her own name and home address in the system was 

prohibited. The board did not sustain the agency’s fourth charge, namely, that 

Hernandez failed to cooperate during an official investigation.

On appeal, Hernandez asserts that the board failed to review her petition, and 

instead, simply followed the Administrative Judge’s decision. She argues that the 

agency’s removal penalty was in retaliation for personal rather than professional issues, 

and was excessive in light of her performance record. The scope of our review in an 

appeal from a decision of the board is limited. Generally, we must affirm the decision 

unless we find it to be “(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). The board found, and the parties do not dispute, that Hernandez made false 

statements in connection with her mother’s citizenship application regarding her 

mother’s residence, her income, and her daughter’s adoption by her ex-husband. There 

is likewise no dispute that Hernandez accessed the TECS and queried her own name 

and home address. 

The board found Hernandez’s explanation for providing incorrect information on 

the affidavit in support of her mother’s application for United States citizenship not 

credible. Because she provided a detailed explanation of why her mother lived with her 

2009-3038 3
continuously for ten years, the board found that Hernandez intentionally omitted the fact 

that her mother also lived for a time with her brothers and in Mexico during the ten years 

at issue. The board also did not credit Hernandez’s explanation with respect to charge 

two, because as a trained criminal investigator who had attended law school, she would 

not likely sign an affidavit without reading the accompanying petition. Finally, the board 

sustained the agency’s charge of misuse of government equipment. It credited the 

agency’s training academy instructor’s testimony that employees were specifically 

trained never to query their own names, and never to access TECS for anything other 

than official agency business, over Hernandez’s testimony, which it found to be 

inconsistent. The board’s fact finding function is benefited by the opportunity to hear 

live testimony and assess witness demeanor and credibility first-hand. Substantial 

evidence supports the board's determinations that the agency met its burden of proving 

by preponderant evidence that Hernandez knowingly supplied false information with the 

intention of defrauding the agency and court, and misused government equipment. 

With respect to the removal penalty, the board independently balanced the 

relevant Douglas factors, including Hernandez’s disciplinary history, satisfactory 

performance reviews, the gravity of her misconduct, and its relation to the efficiency of 

the service. In determining that the penalty of removal was within the tolerable limits of 

reasonableness, the board found that Hernandez’s lack of prior disciplinary actions and 

satisfactory performance reviews could not counterbalance the seriousness of her 

misconduct and her supervisor’s loss of trust in her integrity and honesty. A very high 

standard of honesty and credibility is expected of law enforcement officers because of 

the public trust and confidence attendant to their job responsibilities. Moreover, 

2009-3038 4
2009-3038 5

Hernandez’s record of false statements could affect her credibility if she needed to 

testify in court as a government witness. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 

(1972). Finally, because Hernandez did not acknowledge any wrongdoing or express 

any regret for her actions, the board found her likelihood for rehabilitation slight. 

Because the board applied the appropriate legal standards, and substantial evidence 

supports its conclusions, its decision must stand.