NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Ju stice, 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 In surance Corporation, of Arlington, Virginia. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 fi nal decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissi ng 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 eviden ce and not contrary to law, we affirm

. Elliott worked as a Computer Specialis t 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 remo val in an initia l decision dated November19, 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 in formation 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 ultimate ly 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 DISR ESPECTFUL CONDUCT.” Five and a half years later, on February 20, 2008, Elliott filed a peti tion 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 r easons 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 hav ing been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).

2008-3331 22008-3331 3We 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 so le complaint is that the reas ons 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 reas ons—“FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, AND INAPP ROPRIATE OR DISRESPECTFUL CONDUCT”—correspond nearly ver batim to the FDIC’s two charges sustained in the Board’s 1999 decision: (1) “pro vid[ing] incorrect and false in formation with specific intent to defraud the agency,” and (2) “engag[ing] in in appropriate 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

.