The evidence that the head of OCAS had authority to review employees, grant quality step increases, set schedules, assign duties, and abolish positions is sufficient to establish that he had authority to take or direct personnel actions and that OCAS personnel management is distinguished from that of other subdivisions. Stripped of his arguments that Furman did not have appointing or personnel authority, Markland supports his claim that OPM incorrectly defined his competitive area with no evidence except the existence of the fifteen competitive areas, which are smaller than those existing before OPM s reorganization. Size alone, however, does not show that OPM incorrectly established Markland s competitive area. Therefore, we see no basis for reversing the board s decision that OPM properly established OCAS as a separate competitive area. Markland also argues that even assuming OPM properly designated OCAS as a competitive area, his separation was improper because his transfer from OIT to OCAS was retaliatory.
Substantial evidence supports the board s finding to the contrary.
A comparison of Markland s affidavit with those of other OPM employees, including Tyrrell, Furman, and Sutton, shows that he was neither transferred nor removed in retaliation. Assuming that Sutton intended to orchestrate a transfer to increase the likelihood that Markland would be separated in a RIF, the record establishes that Sutton could not have known that OCAS would conduct the RIF that separated him. Tyrrell stated that she conducted only one cost model and showed this only to Furman, not to Sutton. Furman stated, moreover, that when Markland was transferred into OCAS, his position was not targeted for a RIF, and he abolished Markland s position for no reason other than budget constraints. We will not overturn the board on procedural matters relating to discovery unless an abuse of discretion is clear and is harmful.