Opinion ID: 2645637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Douglas Factors

Text: In Douglas v. Veterans Administration, the MSPB identified a dozen nonexclusive factors that should be considered for disciplinary penalties. Petitioner asserts that these factors were not given appropriate weight in the Board’s decision. For example, the first Douglas factor is: The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee’s duties, position, and responsibility, including whether the offense was intentional or technical or inadvertent, or was 10 BUCKNER v. USPS committed maliciously or for gain, or was fre- quently repeated; 5 M.S.P.B. 313, 332 (1981). The Board found that Petitioner’s “misconduct was repetitive in nature and occurred after she was specifically warned she was required to submit a leave-request form any time she was absent from duty.” Janice Buckner v. United States Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-12-0230-I-1, 11 (June 19, 2012). Mr. Drew testified that morale problems are created when managers who supervise other employees do not themselves obey time and attendance rules. The fourth Douglas factor is “the employee’s past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability.” Douglas, 5 M.S.P.B. at 332. Petitioner stresses that she had been employed for nineteen years with no disciplinary history and had received numerous employment awards, including one nomination for “employee of the year.” In his letter of decision, Mr. Odell stated that he considered Petitioner’s length of service but determined that the seriousness of Petitioner’s conduct outweighed any mitigating factors. The fifth Douglas factor is “the effect of the offense upon the employee’s ability to perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors’ confidence in the employee’s ability to perform assigned duties.” Douglas, 5 M.S.P.B. at 332. Mr. O’Dell, the deciding official, testified that dishonesty in reporting time and attendance is a removable offense, particularly for a manager. He testified that Petitioner had access to security systems within the agency and that he had to be able to trust her. Petitioner asserts that there was no evidence that she was dishonest in reporting her time and attendance. The Board found that the specifications document several instances where Petitioner was present for significantly BUCKNER v. USPS 11 less than 8 hours, and did not honestly report her time and attendance. With respect to the tenth Douglas factor, the “potential for the employee’s rehabilitation,” Mr. O’Dell testified that his belief in Petitioner’s integrity was broken by her actions and that she had no rehabilitative potential. The Board considered Petitioner’s past work record, supervisory role, job responsibilities, potential for rehabilitation, notice of the rules that were violated, and the seriousness of her misconduct, and found that the agency’s removal action should be sustained. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings, and Petitioner has not shown that this conclusion was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The decision of the Board is affirmed. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.