PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

LARRY BACA, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

Respondent. 

-------------------------------------- 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD, 

Intervenor. 

No. 19-9536 

PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF THE 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

(No. DE-0752-19-0022-I-1)

 

Andrew B. Indahl, Altura Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico for Petitioner. 

Domenique Kirchner, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, Department of Justice (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Robert E. 

Kirschman, Jr., Director, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, National 

Courts Section; Elizabeth M. Hosford, Assistant Director, United States Department of 

Justice, Civil Division, National Courts Section, with her on the brief), Washington, D.C., 

for Respondent. 

Tristan L. Leavitt, General Counsel; Katherine M. Smith, Deputy General Counsel; 

Stephen W. Fung, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection 

Board, Washington, D.C, for Intervenor. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 2, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

 

Before BACHARACH, SEYMOUR, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

__________________________________ 

 On September 18, 2018, Mr. Larry Baca was removed from his position in the 

Directorate of Public Works at the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. 

Mr. Baca sought review of this decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), 

asserting three affirmative defenses to his removal. The MSPB rejected all of Mr. Baca’s 

defenses and affirmed his removal. He appeals only the MSPB’s determination with 

respect to one of his affirmative defenses, that his firing was unlawful retaliation for 

whistleblowing in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(b). We hold that we have jurisdiction over this issue, and we affirm. 

I. 

Background 

 In October 2017, Mr. Baca was hired by the U.S. Army White Sands Missile 

Range in New Mexico as a Supervisory Engineer, GS-13, and Chief of the Operations 

and Maintenance Division in the Directorate of Public Works. In July 2018, Mr. Baca 

received a notice of proposed removal that charged him with: (1) conduct unbecoming a 

federal employee; (2) interfering with an agency investigation; (3) abusive, offensive, 

disgraceful or inflammatory language; and (4) lack of candor. Mr. Baca submitted a 

written response to his notice of removal stating that every charge was a “False 
3 

Utterance.” Admin. R., vol. I at 185–89. Mr. Baca was removed from his position on 

September 18, 2018. 

He appealed his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). An 

administrative judge (AJ) adjudicated the appeal in an initial decision and determined that 

two of the charges were established and warranted removal. Admin. R., vol. II at 694, 

723, 736. That decision became the final decision of the MSPB after neither party 

petitioned for further review.1

 We review the details of each of the charges in order to 

provide context and then we turn to Mr. Baca’s affirmative defenses. 

A. Charge 1: Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Employee 

The AJ sustained the charge of conduct unbecoming a federal employee based on 

several specifications of misbehavior by Mr. Baca. First, Mr. Baca was accused by five 

colleagues of showing them pornography at work. The AJ determined that Mr. Baca had 

shown colleagues pornography on his cellphone on multiple occasions and had 

threatened two colleagues with repercussions if they told anyone about the pornography 

he showed them. 

In addition, at least two of Mr. Baca’s female colleagues reported that he had 

made unwanted romantic advances and inappropriate comments toward them. In one 

instance, Mr. Baca told Robin Pritchett he liked her and asked her to go dancing with 

him, continuing his advances despite her repeated refusals. Based upon his conduct, Ms. 

1

 A decision becomes final 35 days after issuance if neither the employee nor 

agency petitions for review by the full three-member board in Washington, D.C. 5 

C.F.R. §§ 1201.111, 1201.113–14. 
4 

Pritchett filed an EEO sexual harassment complaint against Mr. Baca in March 2018. In 

May 2018, Mr. Baca filed an EEO sexual harassment complaint accusing Ms. Pritchett of 

making unwanted romantic advances toward him. In his written response to the removal 

charges and at his hearing before the MSPB, however, Mr. Baca did not mention his EEO 

complaint against Ms. Pritchett but instead simply denied Ms. Pritchett’s accusations. 

After an evidentiary hearing, the AJ found that Mr. Baca had made unwelcome 

romantic advances toward two female colleagues and that his denials were not credible. 

Regarding the incident with Ms. Pritchett, the AJ noted it was “inherently improbable 

that, if there were any truth to [Mr. Baca’s] accusation that Pritchett was the one sexually 

harassing him, [he] did not raise that claim either in his written response to the proposal 

to remove him or at the Board’s hearing.” Id. at 706. Based upon these findings and 

others, the AJ sustained charge one for conduct unbecoming a federal employee. 

B. Charge 2: Interfering with an agency investigation 

The charge of interfering with an agency investigation was based upon a single 

specification that on March 8, 2018, Mr. Baca attempted to intimidate his colleague, Bill 

Huls, in order to secure a written statement that Ms. Pritchett battered another coworker, 

Gus Alvidrez. Another Army employee, Cecilia Montoya, testified that she overheard 

Mr. Baca pressuring Mr. Huls for almost three hours to write a statement. Notably, she 

had written a contemporaneous email to Ms. Pritchett describing what she overheard. 

The AJ credited Ms. Montoya’s testimony and found that Mr. Baca had tried to 

intimidate Mr. Huls into providing information on behalf of Mr. Alvidrez. But the AJ did 
5 

not sustain this charge because there was insufficient evidence that the attempt to 

intimidate Mr. Huls interfered with a government investigation. 

C. Charge 3: Abusive, Offensive, Disgraceful or Inflammatory Language 

Mr. Baca was charged with using abusive, offensive, disgraceful or inflammatory 

language during several incidences in which he used derogatory terms to refer to his 

colleagues. Based upon the testimony of his coworkers, the AJ found that four of the five 

specifications were established, including several incidences of Mr. Baca using 

derogatory Spanish terms to refer to his colleagues. 

D. Charge 4: Lack of Candor 

The agency charged Mr. Baca with lack of candor based upon his statement to an 

investigator that his “daily interaction with Robin Pritchett and other subordinates [was] 

always extremely professional.” Admin. R., vol. I at 15. The charge asserted that Mr. 

Baca misstated his interaction with Ms. Pritchett because he “had in fact previously 

sexually harassed Ms. Pritchett, spoken unprofessionally towards other women . . . and 

created a hostile work environment.” Id. The AJ found that the charge was not 

established because the question posed to Mr. Baca about his relationship with Ms. 

Pritchett was “extremely generalized.” Admin. R., vol. II at 723. The AJ reasoned that 

the charge was “akin to a criminal prosecutor hearing a defendant state under oath that he 

is ‘innocent,’ and adding a perjury charge.” Id. 
6 

E. Affirmative Defenses 

In addition to denying the charges against him, Mr. Baca raised several affirmative 

defenses. He originally asserted that his removal was retaliation for his refusal to follow 

two unlawful orders by his superior to sign off on an expensive janitorial contract. Mr. 

Baca subsequently amended his affirmative defenses, claiming that his removal was 

reprisal for (1) a whistleblower disclosure against Ms. Pritchett; (2) two whistleblower 

disclosures of “gross mismanagement” related to a janitorial contract; and (3) an EEO 

discrimination complaint. Aple. App, vol. I at 445–49. The AJ concluded that Mr. Baca 

failed to establish any of his affirmative defenses. The MSPB’s decision became final on 

April 4, 2019, after neither party petitioned for administrative review. 

Mr. Baca appeals only the Board’s decision with respect to one affirmative 

defense: that his removal was a reprisal for whistleblowing against Ms. Pritchett. The 

facts relevant to this defense pertain to a meeting that took place on March 7, 2018. All 

parties agreed that Ms. Pritchett, Mr. Huls, and Mr. Baca were together in Ms. Pritchett’s 

office for a meeting when Mr. Alvidrez entered Ms. Pritchett’s office. She became 

angry, asked Mr. Alvidrez to leave, and the door slammed shut behind him. Mr. Baca 

claimed that he heard the doorknob strike Mr. Alvidrez in the back, that he immediately 

told Ms. Pritchett she had hit Mr. Alvidrez with the door, that Mr. Huls agreed with him, 

and that Mr. Baca then ended the meeting. The Army denied that Mr. Baca witnessed the 

doorknob hitting Mr. Alvidrez and also denied Mr. Baca’s assertion that he stopped the 

meeting after accusing Ms. Pritchett of striking Mr. Alvidrez. 
7 

The following day, Mr. Baca asked Mr. Huls to provide a written statement about 

what he had observed during the meeting. The Army asserted that Mr. Baca was 

attempting to intimidate and pressure Mr. Huls into providing a statement to support Mr. 

Baca’s version of the meeting. Mr. Huls refused Mr. Baca’s request to provide a 

statement on March 8th but did provide one on March 16th at the request of his 

supervisor. With respect to Ms. Pritchett shutting the door when Mr. Alvidrez left the 

meeting, Mr. Huls’ statement said: 

Ms. Pritchett was right there by the door when Mr. Alvidrez turned around 

to leave. Ms. Pritchett did grab the door and shut it. It might have slammed 

shut but that door had a broken door closure and it wouldn’t take much for it 

to sound like it was slammed shut, so I can’t really confirm that it was 

slammed. 

Id. at 239. An AR 15-6 investigation was conducted into the alleged assault and it 

concluded that Ms. Pritchett had not struck Mr. Alvidrez with the doorknob. 

II. 

Jurisdiction 

We must address two jurisdictional questions of first impression that are presented 

in this case: (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to review a whistleblower retaliation 

claim brought before the MSPB as an affirmative defense to an employment action, and 

(2) whether we have jurisdiction over a case raising both discrimination and 

whistleblower retaliation defenses before the MSPB where the discrimination claim has 

been waived on appeal.2

 Both questions are straightforward and easily resolved. 

2

 The MSPB joined as an intervenor and provided separate briefing in support of 

this court’s jurisdiction to review the case. 
8 

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit generally has jurisdiction over final 

decisions by the MSPB, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), with two exceptions. First, an appeal 

that also challenges an adverse employment action based upon a claim of prohibited 

discrimination (termed a “mixed case”) must be appealed to the appropriate federal 

district court. See Perry v. MSPB, 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1988 (2017)).3

 Second, a petition for 

judicial review of: 

[A] final order or final decision of the [MSPB] that raises no challenge to the 

Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice 

described in [5 U.S.C.] section 2302(b) other than practices described in 

section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C) or (D) shall be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals 

of competent jurisdiction. 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added).4 

A. Retaliation Claim as Affirmative Defense

There are two ways whistleblower retaliation claims arise before the MSPB: (1) a 

stand-alone claim under 5 U.S.C. § 1221 as an individual right of action; or (2) as an 

3

 A “mixed case” or “mixed claim” raises “a personnel action serious enough to 

appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on discrimination.” Perry, 137 

S. Ct. at 1981 (quoting Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012)); see also 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.302(a)(2). 

4

 Previously, petitions for review of final decisions by the MSPB were exclusively 

reviewed by the Federal Circuit. See Avilés v. MSPB, 799 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2015). 

The WPEA extended judicial review of final MSPB in whistleblower cases. See Pub. L. 

No. 112-199, 126 Stat. 1469 codified at 5. U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). Initially set to sunset 

after two years and then extended another three years, see Pub. L. No. 113-170, the 

jurisdictional expansion was permanently authorized in 2018 by the All Circuit Review 

Act. Pub. L. No. 115-195, 132 Stat. 1510 (2018). 
9 

affirmative defense to an adverse employment action over which the MSPB has 

jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7513. In Mottas v. Dep’t of Army, 720 Fed. App’x 912, 913 

(10th Cir. 2017), we exercised jurisdiction to review an MSPB decision on a direct 

individual whistleblower action filed under 5 U.S.C. § 1221.5

 But we have not had 

occasion to exercise jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decision of the MSPB which 

includes a whistleblower claim raised as an affirmative defense. Notably, however, the 

WPEA’s grant of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) does not differentiate 

between whistleblower actions raised as direct claims and those raised as affirmative 

defenses but simply refers to “a petition for review.” See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B), 

supra at 7-8. Under the plain language of that statute, therefore, we have jurisdiction 

over appeals from final MSPB decisions on whistleblower claims where the claims arise 

either directly or as affirmative defenses. 

B. Waiver of Employment Discrimination Claim

As we have noted, Mr. Baca originally challenged his removal as retaliation for 

three whistleblower disclosures and for his filing of an EEO discrimination complaint, 

making his claim a “mixed case.” Aple. App, vol. I at 445–49. The Code of Federal 

Regulations explains that an aggrieved employee “may obtain judicial review as provided 

by 5 U.S.C. § 7703” where the employee “elects to waive the discrimination issue” on 

5

 For jurisdiction, we relied in Mottas on the 2012 version of the WPEA. See 720 

F. App’x at 912 n.1. The language of that statute is equivalent to the current language of 

§ 7703(b)(1)(B), which permanently grants jurisdiction to “any court of appeals of 

competent jurisdiction.” See Pub. L. No. 115-195, 132 Stat. 1510 (2018). 
10 

appeal. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.120 & 1201.157. Because Mr. Baca filed an explicit waiver of 

his discrimination claim and only appeals the denial of one of his other affirmative 

defenses, we have jurisdiction under § 7703 to review this case. 

III. 

Discussion 

We must affirm the decision of the MSPB unless it is (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 abuses its discretion when it 

rests its decision on factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.” Kirkendall v. 

Dep’t of Army, 573 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Mr. Baca claims that his removal was in retaliation for his protected disclosure to 

his supervisor, Jose Gallegos, that he witnessed Ms. Pritchett slam her office door into 

Mr. Alvidrez’s back and injure him. An agency may not remove an employee for 

whistleblowing, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), which is a protected disclosure by a government 

employee who “reasonably believes that the disclosure evidences any violation of any 

law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of 

authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1209.4(b). When asserting a whistleblower reprisal claim, the employee bears the 

prima facie burden of establishing that he made a protected disclosure and that it “was a 

contributing factor in the personnel action.” 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(1); see also Marano v. 

Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the WPA requires 
11 

“evidence only that [a whistleblower’s] protected disclosure played a role in, or was ‘a 

contributing factor’ to, the personnel action taken”). 

The final decision of the MSPB denied Mr. Baca’s whistleblower reprisal claim 

based upon its finding that he did not reasonably believe his disclosure evidenced a 

violation. Mr. Baca challenges the Board’s ruling as arbitrary, capricious and contrary to 

law, claiming that it ignored his primary theory of relief, applied the wrong legal 

standard, and ignored evidence that supported his reasonable belief that Ms. Pritchett 

battered Mr. Alvidrez. 

A. Lawful Assistance Under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(B) 

Mr. Baca first contends the AJ “completely ignored” his primary theory that he 

sought a statement from Mr. Huls in order to assist Mr. Alvidrez in exercising his right to 

disclose the alleged assault. Aplt. Br. at 12. “Testifying for or otherwise lawfully 

assisting any individual in the exercise” of the right to an appeal, complaint, or grievance 

granted by law is protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(b)(9)(B). Mr. Baca cites Whitmore v. Dep’t of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1368 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012), for the principle that “[i]t is error for the MSPB to not evaluate all the 

pertinent evidence in determining whether an element of a claim or defense has been 

proven adequately.” We agree that the MSPB must consider all pertinent evidence but it 

need not discuss each piece of evidence in its decision. Lowder v. Dep’t of Homeland 

Sec., 504 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The failure to discuss particular contentions 

in a case . . . does not mean that the [MSPB] did not consider them in reaching its 
12 

decision.” Id. Accordingly, we will not presume that the AJ ignored evidence which is 

not explicitly referenced in the decision. 

Here, the AJ credited the testimony of both Ms. Montoya and Mr. Huls. Ms. 

Montoya overheard the interaction between Mr. Huls and Mr. Baca and provided a 

statement that Mr. Baca spent “easily 3 hours intimidating [Mr. Huls] into writing a 

statement about what happened that morning in [Ms.Pritchett’s] Office.” Admin. R., 

vol. I at 45. Her statement is consistent with a contemporaneous email she sent to Ms. 

Pritchett in which she said she could overhear Mr. Baca “hammering [Mr. Huls] about 

this statement since about 0730,” “telling [Mr. Huls] to ‘tell the story in his statement’ . . . 

[and] ‘paint the picture,’” and also explaining that she heard Mr. Huls respond to Mr. 

Baca, “I’m not putting all that in my statement.” Id. at 463. In Mr. Huls’ written 

statement, he explained that he felt “uncomfortable” when Mr. Baca asked him to provide 

a statement about the incident. Id. at 38. He also said that “Mr. Baca’s conversational 

interactions within the Division with personnel at times, gave me the impression of 

intimidation and perhaps humiliation.” Id. He reiterated this position in his oral 

testimony before the AJ: 

[Mr. Baca] would bring people in, he would talk to them, it was almost like 

an interrogation and . . . I thought that was very unprofessional . . . it was 

very intimidating . . . having all those people standing around, people [who] 

had no business being there. 

Aple. Supp. App. at 104–05. In considering Mr. Baca’s claim that he was not trying to 

intimidate Mr. Huls, the AJ found it “implausible given Montoya’s undisputed testimony 

that [Mr. Baca] was in Huls’ office pushing him for almost three hours,” Admin. R., 
13 

vol. II at 717, and given the corroborating evidence from Mr. Huls’ statement and Ms. 

Montoya’s email. 

Attempting to intimidate a witness into providing a false statement is not protected 

conduct under the WPA. The Act protects an employee from adverse personnel actions 

for “testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting” another in exercising their right as a 

whistleblower. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(B) (emphasis added). After hearing the testimony, 

the AJ found that Mr. Baca spent three hours “trying to intimidate” Mr. Huls into 

providing a statement on behalf of Mr. Alvidrez. Admin. R., vol. II at 718. 

Mr. Baca argues that as a supervisor of Mr. Alvidrez, he was required by Army 

and DoD policy to investigate and report on incidences of workplace violence.6

 The 

Army asserts that Mr. Baca waived this argument by not previously citing either the 

Army policy notice or DoD instruction. Generally, courts will not consider an issue on 

appeal if it was not raised before the administrative court. Sistek v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, 955 F.3d 948, 953 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding “argument is forfeited for 

failure to present it to the Administrative Judge in the first instance”). However, we do 

allow a party to provide “new legal authority [on appeal] for the position that he . . . 

6

 Mr. Baca cites an Army Instruction, which provides that: “[e]mployees will 

immediately notify their supervisor . . . of a job-related . . . injury. If the immediate 

supervisor or CDSO is not available, notify the next person in the supervisory chain,” and 

that “[s]upervisors will investigate and report, as soon as practical after notification, any 

unplanned event that results in . . . injury to on-duty Department of the Army (DA) 

Civilian personnel.” Army HQDA Policy Notice 385-3, effective 12 October 2017, 

Section 11(b)(1) & (c)(1)(a). 
14 

advanced [below].” Schulenberg v. BNSF Railway Co., 911 F.3d 1276, 1286 n.4 (10th 

Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Here, Mr. Baca’s citations to the Army and DoD policies 

constitute new legal authority in support of his claim of lawful assistance rather than a 

new theory of relief. He cites these policies to support his argument that Mr. Alvidrez 

had a right to file a complaint and that he had a duty to investigate Mr. Alvidrez’s 

complaint. 

Notably, however, Department of Defense (DoD) policies governing workplace 

conduct also clearly state that “[v]iolence, threats, harassment, intimidation, and other 

disruptive behavior will not be tolerated in the workplace,” and that employees who 

engage in these practices will be subject to disciplinary actions including removal. DoD 

Instruction No. 1438.06 (3) (emphasis added). While Mr. Baca is correct that providing 

lawful assistance is a protected activity under § 2303(b)(9)(B), attempting to intimidate 

Mr. Huls in order to secure a statement in support of Mr. Alvidrez violated DoD policy 

and did not constitute lawful assistance. Cf. Gunderson v. BNSF Railway Co., 850 F.3d 

962, 969–70 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that a railroad union president’s actions went 

beyond the bounds of protected union activity and warranted “adverse action for violating 

workplace rules” where the union president harassed and intimidated witnesses during an 

investigation). 

 In sum, although Mr. Baca may have had a duty to investigate and Mr. Alvidrez 

may have had a right to report any injury, Mr. Baca’s attempt to intimidate Mr. Huls is 

not protected conduct. After a review of the record, we are not persuaded by Mr. Baca’s 
15 

claim that the Board failed to consider his theory that he sought a statement from Mr. 

Huls in order to assist Mr. Alvidrez in exercising his right to disclose an alleged assault 

by Ms. Pritchett. Rather, the AJ credited other employees who saw or overheard the 

incident and contradicted Mr. Baca. 

B. Substantial Evidence Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(3) 

Next, Mr. Baca contends the AJ’s determination was not supported by substantial 

evidence because the record included facts known to Mr. Baca which support a 

reasonable belief that a violation occurred, including corroborative evidence. We review 

the factual findings of the agency to ensure they are supported by “substantial evidence,” 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(3), and we will only reverse if the agency’s factual determinations are 

not supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” NLRB v. U.S. Postal Service, 486 F.3d 683, 687 (10th Cir. 

2007). Moreover, we have consistently deferred to the credibility determinations of the 

fact finder because “he or she is uniquely able to observe the demeanor . . . of the 

claimant in a direct and unmediated fashion.” White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 910 

(10th Cir. 2001); see also Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am. v. NLRB, 594 F.3d 732, 740 

(10th Cir. 2010). 

To be entitled to protection under the WPA, an employee must “reasonably 

believe[]” that his/her disclosure relates to “(i) any violation of any law, rule, or 

regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or 

a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) 
16 

(emphasis added). To assess whether the employee had a reasonable belief, the AJ must 

determine “whether a disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts known 

to and readily ascertainable by the employee . . . could reasonably conclude” the alleged 

misconduct took place. 5 U.S.C. § 302(b)(14)(ii); see, e.g., Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 

618 F.3d 1306, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Applying this standard,7

 the AJ considered the 

testimony of everyone who witnessed the incident. As the AJ explained: 

I find no dispute that on March 7, 2018, Pritchett, Huls, and the appellant 

were in Pritchett’s office for a meeting, and when Alvidrez came into her 

office, Pritchett became angry, told Alvidrez to leave, and closed the door in 

a manner that the door slammed behind Alvidrez. Beyond that, the witnesses’ 

accounts diverge. 

7

 Mr. Baca contends the AJ applied the wrong standard in determining that he did 

not prove his affirmative defense and “required Mr. Baca to show that his accusations 

were true” rather than applying the reasonable belief standard. Aplt. Br. at 15 (emphasis 

in original). An AJ is not required to presume a whistleblower’s testimony is credible in 

assessing his reasonable belief but instead must assess it from the vantage point of a 

disinterested observer and weigh contradictory evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(14)(ii); 

see also Frederick v. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 349, 352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The AJ here 

did not require Mr. Baca to prove that Ms. Pritchett battered Mr. Alvidrez. Instead, he 

properly assessed whether there was sufficient, credible evidence to support a reasonable 

belief that the battery occurred and found the evidence lacking. Admin. R., vol. II 

at 724–28. 

Mr. Baca also maintains that instead of applying the reasonable belief standard, 

the AJ incorrectly relied on the factors specified in Hillen v. Dep’t of Army, 35 M.S.P.R. 

453 (M.S.P.B. 1987), to assess which “set of competing disputed facts [was] true.” Aplt. 

Br. at 13. We are not persuaded. Hillen sets out the “general internal procedural 

requirements that the MSPB has established for its adjudicative processes” in order to 

resolve issues of credibility. Haebe v. Dep’t of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301–02 n.32 

(Fed. Cir. 2002). An AJ’s determination as to the credibility of a whistleblower, 

however, is relevant to the reasonable belief assessment. Kahn, 618 F.3d at 1313; see 

also Horton v. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 279, 283 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“credibility is indeed 

relevant in determining [the whistleblower’s] reasonable belief”), superseded by statute 

on other grounds see Armstrong v. The Arcanum Group, Inc., 897 F.3d 1283, 1287 (10th 

Cir. 2018). 
17 

 

Admin. R., vol. II at 725. As a part of the May 2018 agency investigation, both Ms. 

Pritchett and Mr. Huls provided written statements contradicting Mr. Baca’s claim that he 

witnessed the door hit Mr. Alvidrez. Admin. R., vol. I at 38–40, 62–65. The AJ noted 

that Mr. Huls’ statement on March 16, 2018, was “entirely inconsistent” with Mr. Baca’s 

testimony. Admin. R., vol. II at 726; see also Admin. R., vol. I at 239–40. In addition, 

Ms. Pritchett testified that she had a “little window” on her door through which she could 

see that Mr. Alvidrez was no longer in front of the door when she shut it. Aple. Supp. 

App. at 82. Reviewing all of the evidence, the AJ determined that Mr. Baca’s testimony 

was not credible.8

 

The AJ provided three additional reasons for his determination that Mr. Baca’s 

version of events was not believable. First, Mr. Baca’s claim that the door hit Mr. 

Alvidrez during the meeting was implausible because he could not have seen the door hit 

Mr. Alvidrez from his location in Ms. Pritchett’s office. In addition, Mr. Alvidrez 

testified that he walked away and did not return to alert anyone he had been struck by the 

door. Aple. Supp. App. at 397. Second, the AJ found implausible Mr. Baca’s claim that 

he immediately accused Ms. Pritchett of battery, that Mr. Huls agreed with his 

accusation, and that Mr. Baca then stopped the meeting because his version of events was 

8

 The AJ’s determination is also supported by testimony from Jason Benjamin, 

who worked across the hall from Ms. Pritchett’s office. He testified that he could clearly 

see Mr. Alvidrez from the hallway and that he heard Ms. Pritchett’s “door slam, total 

slam, [the door] didn’t touch [Mr. Alvidrez] . . . [who] had already taken four or five 

steps away from the door.” Aple. Supp. App. at 25–26. 
18 

not corroborated by either Ms. Pritchett or Mr. Huls. Third, noting that Mr. Baca had 

previously accused another colleague of assaulting Mr. Alvidrez, the AJ found it 

implausible Mr. Baca would “repeatedly witness the same employee get physically 

attacked or threatened.” Admin. R., vol. II at 727. Any remaining doubt the AJ had as to 

whether Mr. Baca could have twice observed Mr. Alvidrez being attacked by a colleague 

was eliminated by Mr. Baca’s attempt to intimidate Mr. Huls into providing a statement 

on March 8th. Accordingly, Mr. Baca’s testimony did not provide credible “essential 

facts” on which a disinterested observer could rely. 5 U.S.C. §2302(14)(b)(ii). For all 

these reasons, the AJ provided more than sufficient support for the conclusion that a 

disinterested observer could not have reasonably concluded Ms. Pritchett battered Mr. 

Alvidrez. 

With virtually no citations to the record, Mr. Baca also contends the AJ “ignored 

and failed to address a mountain of evidence” including the testimony of Mr. Alvidrez as 

well as medical records that allegedly corroborate his testimony. Aplt. Br. at 17. An AJ 

is required to decide whether a whistleblower had a reasonable belief based upon the 

facts “known to [or] readily ascertainable by” the whistleblower. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(b)(14)(ii). Thus, Mr. Alvidrez’s testimony and subsequent medical records are 

only relevant to Mr. Baca’s reasonable belief if they were “known to [or] readily 

ascertainable by” Mr. Baca at the time of his March 8th disclosure. See id. 

 Mr. Baca failed to introduce credible evidence to establish the relevance of Mr. 

Alvidrez’s testimony or medical records. While Mr. Baca testified that immediately after 
19 

the incident he received an email from Mr. Alvidrez “saying he was going to the McAfee 

Clinic . . . [and] that he was going to the Department, the Director of Emergency Services 

to report the incident,” Aple. Supp. App. at 205, the AJ determined Mr. Baca was not 

credible. Indeed, Mr. Baca’s testimony is contradicted by Mr. Alvidrez, who testified 

that he sent an email to Mr. Baca and Mr. Gallegos after returning from the McAfee 

Clinic. He testified the email said that he “was going home because [he] had a lowerback injury,” without mentioning that he had gone to the medical clinic or that the injury 

was Ms. Pritchett’s fault. Id. at 400–01. The email is not included in the record and the 

record does not otherwise contain any evidence that Mr. Alvidrez communicated to Mr. 

Baca, prior to Mr. Baca’s disclosure, that he suffered an assault or sought medical 

treatment. Based upon the evidence included in the agency record, the AJ focused his 

assessment on Mr. Baca’s claim that he witnessed the events inside Ms. Pritchett’s office 

and correctly disregarded Mr. Alvidrez’s testimony and the medical evidence as 

irrelevant to assessing Mr. Baca’s reasonable belief at the time of his disclosure. 

Because we affirm the AJ’s finding that Mr. Baca did not make a protected 

disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), we need not address the remainder of Mr. Baca’s 

arguments that he is entitled to relief under the WPA. The decision of the MSPB is 

AFFIRMED.