NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3204 

NELS T. BECK, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Respondent. 

Nels T. Beck, of Aplington, Iowa, pro se. 

Michelle Windmueller, Appellate Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, United 

States Postal Service, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were 

Lori J. Dym, Chief Counsel; and Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was 

Amanda L. Tantum, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. 

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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3204 

NELS T. BECK, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

 Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in 

CH0752070525-I-1 

 _________________________ 

 DECIDED: September 9, 2008 

 __________________________ 

Before RADER, CLEVENGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Nels T. Beck seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (“Board”) sustaining the decision of the United States Postal Service (“agency”) 

to remove him from his position of Rural Carrier at the agency’s Waterloo, Iowa facility. 

Beck v. U.S. Postal Service, No. CH0752070525-I-1 (January 24, 2008). We affirm. 

I 

Mr. Beck was involved in an automobile accident on February 12, 2007, while 

delivering mail on his rural route. Mr. Beck ran a stop sign and hit a vehicle driving 
through the intersection. The driver of the other vehicle was thrown from it, and the 

passenger had to be pried out by the fire department. Mr. Beck was injured. 

The agency proposed his removal as a result of his negligent driving which 

resulted in the accident. Mr. Beck did not contest the fact that he had caused the 

accident. He argued for mitigation of the penalty to something less than removal. The 

agency’s deciding official considered the Douglas factors in assessing Mr. Beck’s 

request for mitigation. The deciding official rejected Mr. Beck’s argument that he was 

not to blame for the accident, due to his driving a substitute vehicle with which he was 

not familiar, and the light conditions which he asserted kept him from recognizing the ice 

upon which he was driving. Because the offense was serious, and because Mr. Beck 

had previously been disciplined for unsafe driving, the agency determined that removal 

was the appropriate penalty. No lesser penalty would be proper, as there was no 

indication that some other sanction would deter such unsafe acts in the future. 

II 

Mr. Beck appealed his removal to the Board. The administrative judge assigned 

to his case held a hearing at which Mr. Beck and the deciding official testified. 

Mr. Beck did not deny that he failed to observe safe driving practices. He 

repeated his reasons for a lesser penalty. The administrative judge found convincing 

the testimony of the deciding official that Mr. Beck posed a distinct liability to the 

agency, and was not a good candidate for rehabilitation. The administrative judge 

reviewed the deciding official’s assessment of the Douglas factors and concluded that 

the agency had demonstrated that removal was appropriate. 

2008-3204 2 
Mr. Beck sought review of the administrative judge’s initial decision by the full 

Board. The full Board declined his petition for review, and Mr. Beck timely sought 

review in this court. 

III 

We must affirm the final decision of the Board unless we determine that it is 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise unlawful. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). 

When the final decision of the Board rests on findings of fact, we review those findings 

for substantial evidence. 

In this case, there is no dispute as to the facts. Mr. Beck repeats his contention 

that removal was an excessive penalty, and he argues that his previous discipline for 

unsafe driving should not be considered in assessing the penalty for the February 2007 

collision because that discipline was under grievance procedures when the deciding 

official proposed his removal. 

On the propriety of the removal penalty, the issue boils down to whether the 

deciding official’s assessment of the Douglas factors amounts to reversible error. We 

perceive no error in the agency’s decision to remove Mr. Beck. Furthermore, we find no 

error in the agency’s reference to his earlier unsafe driving event. The Supreme Court 

has ruled that when considering the appropriate penalty for an offense, an agency may 

refer to other previous disciplined offenses even though they are under grievance when 

the agency is considering the appropriate penalty. Gregory v. U.S. Postal Serv., 

534 U.S. 1 (2001). 

2008-3204 3 
2008-3204 4 

Because the Board’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 

or otherwise unlawful, we affirm. 

COSTS 

No costs.