UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

CRAIG J. EDGIN,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBERS

CH-0752-14-0387-I-1

CH-0752-12-0767-C-1

DATE: February 24, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Craig J. Edgin, Freeland, Michigan, pro se.

Heather L. McDermott, Esquire, Chicago, Illinois, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

affirmed his removal and denied his petition for enforcement.

2

 Generally, we 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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).

2 The administrative judge joined these matters prior to adjudication. Initial Appeal 

File (IAF), Tabs 4, 8. We agree with the administrative judge that joinder was 

appropriate. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36.
2

grant petitions such as this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous 

findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous 

interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to 

the facts of the case; the judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or 

the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an 

abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or 

new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the 

petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. See Title 5 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). 

After fully considering the filings in this appeal, and based on the following 

points and authorities, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any 

basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we 

DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the 

Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

Background

¶2 In a prior Nonprecedential Final Order, the Board reversed the appellant’s 

removal on a Ward/Stone due process violation and denied his disability 

discrimination affirmative defenses. Edgin v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket 

No. CH-0752-12-0767-I-1, Final Order at 7, 9 (Dec. 30, 2013) (Final Order). 

Following the Board’s final order, the agency again proposed the appellant’s 

removal for failure to pass a qualifying exam for a position which he had been 

awarded through the agency’s job-bidding process, and, after considering the 

appellant’s response, it issued him a letter of decision again imposing his 

removal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 13 at 109-11 (letter of decision), 135-36 

(notice of proposed removal) of 142. The appellant filed a timely appeal of the 

second removal action, and the administrative judge joined the removal appeal

with a pending petition for enforcement the appellant had filed challenging the 
3

agency’s decision not to provide him back pay following the reversal of the first 

removal action. See IAF, Tabs 4, 8.

¶3 The administrative judge issued a new initial decision sustaining the 

appellant’s removal, denying his affirmative defenses of disability discrimination 

as to the second removal action, and denying his petition for enforcement. IAF, 

Tab 20, Initial Decision (ID). In her initial decision, the administrative judge 

found that the agency proved its charge that the appellant failed to pass a 

qualifying exam and that, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining 

agreement, the appellant was removed from employment based upon this failure. 

ID at 3. The administrative judge further found that the appellant failed to 

establish his affirmative defenses of disability discrimination (both disparate 

treatment and failure to accommodate), and she also denied his petition for 

enforcement, concluding that the agency complied with the Board’s prior order 

when it returned the appellant to a duty status but did not award him back pay 

because he was not ready, willing, and able to work following his first removal 

from employment. ID at 3-4, 7-8.

¶4 The appellant has filed a petition for review arguing that the agency erred in 

taking the second removal action and that he proved his affirmative defenses of 

disability discrimination. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5. The agency 

has filed a response in opposition to the petition for review. PFR File, Tab 3.

The appellant’s removal is sustained.

¶5 We have reviewed the initial decision and agree with the administrative 

judge that the agency proved its charge that the appellant failed to pass a 

mandatory qualifying exam for his position of employment. ID at 3. As the 

Board explained in its prior final order, due to the closure of the appellant’s 

previous work location, the appellant was afforded the opportunity to bid for a 

new position of employment at a neighboring facility. See Final Order at 2; IAF, 

Tab 13 at 135 of 142. The appellant successfully bid on a position as a Bulk Mail 

Technician and was required to pass a qualifying exam for the position or 
4

otherwise be separated from employment pursuant to the terms of the collective 

bargaining agreement. IAF, Tab 13 at 8, 23-24 of 47. The appellant failed to 

pass the qualifying exam, and, citing this failure, the agency initiated the 

appellant’s removal. IAF, Tab 13 at 135-36 of 142. We agree with the 

administrative judge that the agency proved its charge by a preponderance of the 

evidence and that there exists a nexus between the appellant’s failure to pass the 

qualifying exam and the efficiency of the agency’s operational mission. ID at 3; 

see Marshall-Carter v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 94 M.S.P.R. 518, ¶ 13 

(2003) (the employee’s removal promoted the efficiency of the service upon a 

showing that she could not perform the core duties of her position), aff’d, 

122 F. App’x 513 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

¶6 We further agree with the administrative judge that the agency’s penalty of 

removal is within the tolerable limits of reasonableness and should be sustained. 

When the Board sustains all of an agency’s charges, it reviews the 

agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all of the 

relevant factors and exercised management discretion within tolerable limits of 

reasonableness. See Taylor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 98 M.S.P.R. 337, 

¶ 7 (2005), aff’d, 175 F. App’x 335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We agree that the 

appellant’s removal is within the tolerable limits of reasonableness. ID at 5. The 

record reflects that the appellant voluntarily bid on a position requiring a 

qualifying exam and that the agency informed the appellant in advance that he 

would face separation if he failed to qualify for his new position. IAF, Tab 13 at 

23-24 of 47. The appellant, moreover, declined the agency’s offer of 

reassignment after failing the exam, and the deciding official found that the 

appellant presented no mitigating circumstances warranting a lesser penalty. IAF, 

Tab 13 at 109-10 of 142, Tab 16 at 23. We find that the agency’s judgment did 

not exceed the tolerable limits of reasonableness, and we SUSTAIN the 

appellant’s removal. See Taylor, 98 M.S.P.R. 337, ¶ 7; Sanders v. U.S. Postal 
5

Service, 32 M.S.P.R. 455, 459-60 (1987) (sustaining removal for failure to pass 

qualifying scheme).

The administrative judge properly rejected the appellant’s disability 

discrimination affirmative defenses.

¶7 We further find that the administrative judge properly rejected the 

appellant’s failure to accommodate and disparate treatment claims as to his 

second removal. 3

 ID at 3-5. The record reflects that the agency engaged in the 

interactive process with the appellant prior to issuing a letter of decision on his

proposed removal, including requesting medical information about the nature of 

his proffered disabilities, and that he failed to provide such information or 

explain what type of accommodation he needed.4

 ID at 4-5. We find, moreover, 

that the appellant failed to identify a vacant funded position to which he could 

have been reassigned or provide any other evidence of another accommodation. 

See Kohl v. Department of the Army, 80 M.S.P.R. 678, ¶ 5 (1999). The agency, 

moreover, made several good faith attempts to interact with the appellant prior to, 

and after, his removal; we thus find no support for the appellant’s failure to 

accommodate affirmative defense. See Miller v. Department of the Army, 121 

M.S.P.R. 189, ¶¶ 15, 19 (2014) (finding that the agency engaged in the interactive 

process in good faith); IAF, Tab 15 at 31, 44, 47, 49 (agency letters to the

appellant seeking medical information).

 3 To the extent the appellant challenges the agency’s actions preceding the second 

removal action, those claims either were or could have been raised in his prior 

mixed-case appeal and are not currently before the Board. See Navarro v. Office of 

Personnel Management, 105 M.S.P.R. 278, ¶ 4 (res judicata bars a party from raising a 

claim that was, or could have been, asserted in a prior proceeding), aff’d, 252 F. App’x 

316 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

4 The appellant submitted some medical documentation following the effective date of 

his removal. See IAF, Tab 13 at 87-105. We find that this information fails to establish 

what accommodation, if any, the appellant requested. See White v. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 405, ¶¶ 12-15 (2013).
6

¶8 We further agree with the administrative judge that the appellant’s disparate 

treatment claim fails for a lack of proof. ID at 3-4. The appellant alleged below 

that another employee who failed to pass a qualifying exam was offered 

reassignment to another position but that he was not. See IAF, Tab 15 at 10. The 

administrative judge found, however, that this employee was not a valid 

comparator because the appellant was also offered reassignment through a 

settlement agreement and that he declined the agency’s offer. ID at 3-4; IAF, Tab 

16 at 16-17 (comparator settlement), 23 (appellant withdrawal from settlement). 

We agree that, based on this evidence, the appellant failed to establish his claim 

of disability-based disparate treatment and that the agency put forth a legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reason for removing the appellant. See Hodges v. Department 

of Justice, 121 M.S.P.R. 337, ¶ 19 (2014) (where a hearing has been held, the 

Board will proceed to the ultimate inquiry of whether the appellant established

that the reasons for the agency’s actions were a pretext for discrimination).

The administrative judge properly denied the appellant’s petition for 

enforcement.

¶9 Lastly, we have reviewed the administrative judge’s denial of the 

appellant’s petition for enforcement, and we agree that the agency complied with 

the Board’s prior final order and that the appellant is not entitled to back pay 

following the reversal of the first removal action. See ID at 6-7. When the Board 

finds that an employee has been the victim of an unjustified or unwarranted 

personnel action, the goal is to place the employee in the circumstances he would 

have been in, had the personnel action never taken place. King v. Department of 

the Navy, 100 M.S.P.R. 116, ¶ 12 (2005), aff’d, 167 F. App’x 191 (Fed. Cir. 

2006). Pursuant to the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations and the 

Board’s case law, an individual is not entitled to back pay for any period of time 

during which he was not ready, willing, and able to perform his duties because of 

an incapacitating illness or injury, or for reasons unrelated to or not caused by the 

unjustified or unwarranted personnel action. Id.; 5 C.F.R. § 550.805(c)(1)-(2).
7

¶10 Here, the administrative judge found that the appellant was unable to 

perform the duties of his position because he had failed the qualifying exam for 

his new position of employment and that his failure was unrelated to the 

personnel action at issue. ID at 7. We agree that because the appellant failed the 

qualifying exam prior to his removal, he was unable to perform the duties of his 

position, and he was not entitled to lost back pay and benefits upon the reversal 

of his removal. See King, 100 M.S.P.R. 116, ¶ 15 (an employee’s failure to 

complete a security clearance precluded the employee from receiving back pay 

because he was not ready, willing, and able to perform job duties).

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the aforementioned reasons, the appellant’s removal is SUSTAINED, 

his disability discrimination affirmative defenses are DENIED, and his petition 

for enforcement is DENIED. This is the Board’s final decision in this 

matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request further review of this final decision. 

Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review

You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination 

claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See Title 5 

of the United States Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you 

submit your request by regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is:

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit your request via commercial delivery or by a method 

requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
8

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, NE

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after 

your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your 

representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no 

later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to 

file, be very careful to file on time.

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action

If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your 

discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your 

discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States 

district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with

the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If 

you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order 

before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar

days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to 

file on time. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to 

representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of
9

prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) 

and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board