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

 04-3303 

 ESTELLE GRAINGER, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

DECIDED: January 5, 2005 

__________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Estelle Grainger seeks judicial review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board, Docket No. PH0752020351-I-1, affirming the agency's thirty-day suspension from 

August 5, 2002 through September 3, 2002. We affirm. 
04-3303 2 

 BACKGROUND 

Ms. Grainger was employed by the Social Security Administration as a Social 

Insurance Claims Examiner (Foreign Benefit Technical Examiner) at the agency 

headquarters in Woodlawn, Maryland. The events that led to the suspension are reported 

to have occurred between July 2001 and April 2002. During this period Ms. Grainger's 

supervisors became increasingly concerned about her allegedly eccentric and disruptive 

behavior; she was referred to the Employee Assistance Program, and in October 2001 she 

was placed on paid administrative leave for two weeks in order to obtain medical review of 

her psychological and physical condition. Her management reported a "noticeable 

improvement," and the agency's medical officer reviewed the medical documentation 

provided by her physician and concluded that Ms. Grainger "has a treatable medical 

condition that should not interfere with her performing her job satisfactorily." However, the 

record records further incidents of eccentric or disruptive behavior, and on June 26, 2002 

the agency proposed to suspend Ms. Grainger for thirty days, charging her with 

inappropriate and disruptive behavior in the workplace, uncooperative behavior toward her 

supervisors, failure to follow instructions, and abuse and misuse of official materials. The 

administrative judge affirmed the suspension on December 10, 2002, and the full Board 

denied review. This appeal followed. 

 DISCUSSION 

The Board's decision must be affirmed unless it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures required 

by law, rule, or regulation; or unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. §7703(c); see

Kewley v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 
04-3303 3 

Ms. Grainger argues that the penalty was disproportionately severe, and that the 

Board failed to take into account the "Douglas factors," as set forth in Douglas v. Veterans 

Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981). However, the AJ reviewed these factors, 

and found the penalty of a thirty-day suspension to be reasonable in light of the events that 

occurred. We agree that the agency's action was reasonable in the circumstances that 

were shown to have existed, and discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the action 

taken. 

Ms. Grainger raises additional arguments on this appeal, stating that she was a 

whistleblower, that the Board failed to take into account various tort claims and other 

wrongs including discrimination, that she was not afforded a presumption of innocence, and 

that her constitutional rights were violated. These issues were not discussed by the Board, 

and do not appear to have been developed at the hearing before the administrative judge. 

See Bosley v. MSPB, 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("A party in an MSPB proceeding 

must raise an issue before the administrative judge if the issue is to be preserved for review 

in this court.") Ms. Grainger does not identify any protected disclosures as a whistleblower, 

5 U.S.C. §2302 (b)(8)(A), which may have been a contributing factor in the suspension. 

To the extent Ms. Grainger alleges a violation of constitutional due process, we 

discern none. Ms. Grainger was provided notice by the agency and an opportunity to 

respond, Stone v. Fed. Deposit Insurance Corp., 179 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and 

no irregularities have been shown in the Board's review of the agency's action.