NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2008-3331 

ROGER ELLIOTT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

Respondent. 

Roger Elliott, of Church Hill, Tennessee, pro se. 

Robert C. Bigler, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

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

the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, 

Director, and Kenneth M. Dintzer, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was 

Barbara Sarshik, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, of Arlington, 

Virginia. 

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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3331 

ROGER ELLIOTT, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

 Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DC0752990690-C-1. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: January 6, 2009 

 __________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Roger Elliott (“Elliott”) appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his petition for enforcement. Elliott v. FDIC, No. 

DC0752990690-C-1 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 4, 2008) (“2008 Decision”), review denied, Elliott v. 

FDIC, No. DC0752990690-C-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 5, 2008). Because the Board’s decision 

is supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law, we affirm. 

Elliott worked as a Computer Specialist at the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (“FDIC” or “agency”) until his removal on June 18, 1999. He appealed his 

removal to the Board, which sustained his removal in an initial decision dated November 
19, 1999. Elliott v. FDIC, No. DC0752990690-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 19, 1999) (“1999 

Decision”). In reaching that decision, the Board sustained the agency’s charges that 

Elliott (1) “provide[d] incorrect and false information with specific intent to defraud the 

agency” and (2) “engaged in inappropriate or disrespectful conduct.” Id. at 7. The initial 

decision became final on August 18, 2000. Elliott then challenged his removal in 

several federal district courts, which ultimately dismissed his claims. After his claims 

were dismissed, the FDIC issued an amended Standard Form 50 “Notification of 

Personnel Action” (“SF-50”) on June 13, 2002 indicating the following reasons for 

Elliott’s removal: “FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

DOCUMENTS, AND INAPPROPRIATE OR DISRESPECTFUL CONDUCT.” Five and a 

half years later, on February 20, 2008, Elliott filed a petition for enforcement with the 

Board, claiming that the amended SF-50 is “fraudulent and libelous.” The Board denied 

Elliott’s petition. 2008 Decision at 3. That decision became final on August 5, 2008, 

and Elliott timely appealed that decision to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the amended SF-50 correctly sets forth 

the reasons for Elliott’s removal, which were previously sustained by the Board in its 

1999 decision. The Board, in 2008, answered in the affirmative, finding that the 

amended SF-50 correctly states the reasons for Elliott’s removal. 2008 Decision at 3. 

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it was (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). 

2008-3331 2 
2008-3331 3 

We see no error in the Board’s 2008 decision. In challenging the amended SF50 in this appeal, Elliott does not argue that the agency lacks the general authority to 

issue or amend a former employee’s SF-50 to reflect the grounds for removal sustained 

by the Board. Rather, his sole complaint is that the reasons for removal listed on the 

amended SF-50 are “fraudulent and libelous.” The amended SF-50 lists two reasons 

for Elliott’s removal. Those two reasons—“FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, AND INAPPROPRIATE OR DISRESPECTFUL 

CONDUCT”—correspond nearly verbatim to the FDIC’s two charges sustained in the 

Board’s 1999 decision: (1) “provid[ing] incorrect and false information with specific intent 

to defraud the agency,” and (2) “engag[ing] in inappropriate or disrespectful conduct.” 

1999 Decision at 7. Accordingly, the Board’s conclusion that the amended SF-50 

correctly states the reasons for Elliott’s removal is supported by substantial evidence 

and is not contrary to law. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.