Case Name: Donald A. Torres v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-03-30
Citations: 230 Ct. Cl. 866
Docket Number: App. No. 29-80
Parties: Donald A. Torres v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
Judges: Before Skelton, Senior Judge, Bennett and Smith, Judges.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 866–867

Head Matter:
App. No. 29-80.
March 30, 1982
Donald A. Torres v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
David Heller, for petitioner. Jack B. Solerwitz, attorney of record.
Richard W Oehler, with whom was Assistant Attorney General J. Paul McGrath, for respondent. Elizabeth Langer, attorney of record.
Before Skelton, Senior Judge, Bennett and Smith, Judges.

Opinion:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (mspb), entered August 24, 1979, No. NY075299044, which upheld removal of petitioner from his position as a special agent with the United States Secret Service.
Petitioner's removal was based on three charges brought by his agency: (1) leaving his assignment without authorization on three separate occasions, (2) repeated use of a government vehicle for unauthorized, unofficial purposes, and (3) falsification of his official work record in an attempt to claim compensation for hours he did not work. His removal, on proper notice, was effected on March 23, 1979, to promote the efficiency of the service. 5 U.S.C. §7513 (Supp. IV (1980)).
Our standard of review is that provided under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1138 (1978), 5 U.S.C. §7703 (Supp. IV (1980)). Under that statute we are limited to a determination on appeal to ascertaining whether the action taken should be held unlawful and set aside because it was found (1) to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) to be obtained without having followed procedures required by law, rule or regulation; or (3) to be unsupported by substantial evidence.
We have heard oral argument in this case and have examined the briefs, the mspb opinion, the four-volume administrative record containing the hearing transcript, and pertinent documents and exhibits. We do not find it necessary to rewrite this case here because we find that there is no viable basis to set the decision aside for any failure under the tests for appellate review. The charges on which petitioner's removal came about are fully supported by substantial evidence. The adverse decision was not arbitrary or an abuse of agency discretion and violated no procedures required by law. Petitioner has contended that his removal was motivated by malice and ill will and was discriminatory and that the penalty of removal was disproportionate to his alleged offenses. We find these defenses to have no merit.
it is therefore ordered, that the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in upholding petitioner's removal is AFFIRMED.