Opinion ID: 546391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Five Specifications Sustained

Text: 19 After reviewing the record, the briefs, and the AJ's opinion, we hold that none of the findings is arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence and none of the conclusions is an abuse of discretion, was reached without required procedures or is contrary to law. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c) (1988). 20 All five specifications sustained were supported by substantial evidence on the record before us. In addition to resting heavily on credibility determinations concerning the various agency witnesses and Webster, the AJ's findings are in many cases undisputed by Webster, who admits to the conduct alleged but offers excuses. We hold they were properly rejected as legally insufficient. Beyond the facts set forth in our Background section, we explicitly address only the two sustained specifications which the dissent believes were not supported by substantial evidence. 21 Webster was found insubordinate because he violated a specific, repeated instruction to report to his supervisor, daily, before turning in his vehicle. It is undisputed that on September 13, 1988, Webster did not report as instructed. 22 We think that in such a military/postal employment setting, the efficiency of the service requires that an immediate supervisor's lawful instructions must be followed by clerks like Webster, even if they think the instructions are foolish, and even if they are correct. It was Webster's duty to follow the reporting instruction. Therefore, whether or not McCain's instruction was wise, Webster's noncompliance cannot be excused. 23 The dissent questions why the AJ discredited Webster's excuse for defying the policy of reporting in, particularly since, despite his noncompliance, Webster did not incur overtime costs, the sole purpose of the policy. The record reflects, however, that what is referred to as a policy was not only of long standing, but was actually an explicit instruction which McCain had repeatedly and personally counselled Webster to follow. Notice of Proposed Removal, compiled in Board Record (Tab J). Far from disbelieving Webster, the AJ, by necessary implication, 2 determined his excuse was legally insufficient. We cannot disagree. While the dissent also faults the AJ for defective analysis on this issue, we think that the AJ's failure to explain specifically why he was unpersuaded by Webster's excuse, when it was legally irrelevant, cannot constitute reversible error. Webster cites no authority requiring insubordination to be flagrant or continual before discipline may be imposed. We have said that insubordination is a willful and intentional refusal to obey an authorized order of a superior officer which the officer is entitled to have obeyed. Phillips v. General Servs. Admin., 78 F.2d 370, 373 (Fed.Cir.1989). There was substantial evidence that Webster violated a lawful instruction, without lawful excuse. 24 The dissent next expresses concern that this one infraction is de minimis, merely a procedural violation. Although, by itself, this single incident may not be serious or, alone, sufficient to support removal, it must be, as it was, considered by the AJ along with the other four sustained incidents in determining that Webster's combined misconduct was serious. Furthermore, no authority is offered to support the proposition that violations of instructions cannot support disciplinary action if they are merely procedural. 25 Likewise, we hold there is substantial evidence to support the finding Webster was insubordinate regarding the fire drill instruction. The AJ found that McCain instructed everyone to assemble on the lawn, Webster, slip op. at 7, and the record reflects McCain shouted, Fire, fire, fall out on the grass in front of the Postal Branch.... Disposition Form, by Willie L. McCain, Chief, Postal/Distribution Branch (Sept. 21, 1988), compiled in Board Record (Tab 4K-4) (emphasis added). As everyone knows who is familiar with terminology commonly used on an Army base, even by civilian employees, fall out means assemble and remain assembled until expressly dismissed or otherwise instructed. 26 McCain's own testimony was by no means the only evidence of the specific content of his fire drill instruction. The record also contains statements by employees that he instructed them to assemble and remain at a designated place outside. See Statements of Warren P. Basnight and Peggy E. Worcester (Sept. 16 & 23, 1988, respectively), compiled in Board Record (Tab 4K-4). McCain asserts he saw Webster leave the building with the other personnel but then he could not find Webster in the designated assembly area. Disposition Form, by Willie L. McCain, Chief, Postal/Distribution Branch (Sept. 21, 1988), compiled in Board Record (Tab 4K-4). The reason, according to the AJ's finding, was that Webster left the area to get ice cream. Webster, slip op. at 7. Webster admits departing and making the statement to McCain on his return that the AJ found disrespectful. 27 As to whether McCain instructed Webster to assemble for the fire drill, the AJ found that McCain instructed all employees to assemble on the lawn in front of the branch. Id. (emphasis added). Employees are quoted in the record as agreeing that McCain instructed them to assemble outside on the grass and that McCain reported he told everyone to fall out on the grass, as reflected in the Disposition Form he made less than a week after the fire drill incident. The record reflects that Webster was present at his desk when the fire drill was called. Disposition Form, by Willie L. McCain, Chief, Postal/Distribution Branch (Sept. 1, 1988), compiled in Board Record (Tab 4K-4). Thus, Webster was present and it cannot reasonably be disputed that he heard the instruction to assemble. In addition, the specific content of his fire drill instruction was testified to by McCain and the AJ believed that testimony. Accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support the AJ's finding that McCain instructed all employees to assemble on the lawn in front of the [postal] branch. Webster, slip op. at 7. Thus, there is substantial evidence of record to support the AJ's sustaining charges for Webster's insubordination and disrespect to his supervisor.