Opinion ID: 4471463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2017 security violations

Text: In 2017, Ms. Knowles was informed that she had vio- lated agency rules related to safeguarding printed and electronic individually identifiable privacy-protected information. The agency issued two memorandums, the first from the Information Security Officer (ISO) and the second from the Assistant Chief of Health Information Management (ACHIM). As to the first Carr factor, the Board found strong evidence supporting the violations, and substantial evidence supports its finding. J.A. 15, 17. The first memorandum from the agency’s ISO on January 10, 2017, detailed that Ms. Knowles had left patient records unattended or unsecured on her desk. J.A. 14–15. The Board found that Ms. Knowles did not deny leaving the information unattended and unsecured on her desk. J.A. 15. The second memorandum from February 7, 2017 indicated Ms. Knowles left a pre-complaint form with Ms. Knowles’s full name, address, and social security number face-up in the top tray at a work station. J.A. 16. Again, Ms. Knowles did not deny the allegation. J.A. 17. As to the second Carr factor, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that no evidence existed on the part of the two agency officials to retaliate against Ms. 8 KNOWLES v. DVA Knowles. The ISO was unaware of Ms. Knowles’s protected disclosure when it issued the January 2017 memorandum. J.A. 15. Nor was there any evidence in the record as to whether the ACHIM, the author of the second memorandum, knew about Ms. Knowles’s protected disclosure. J.A. 17. Neither Ms. Knowles nor the government presented evidence as to a similarly situated non-whistleblower. Therefore, the Board was free to find the personnel action lawful under Carr factors one and two. Sutton v. Dep’t of Justice, 94 M.S.P.R 4, 12–13 (2003) (finding that whistleblower was lawfully removed based on the evidence under Carr factors one and two, where the record contained no evidence of action taken against similarly situated non-whistleblowers); see also McCarthy v. Int’l Boundary & Water Comm.: U.S. & Mexico, 116 M.S.P.R. 594, 626 (2011) (concluding that “the third Carr factor is not a significant factor for the Board’s analysis in the instant appeal” in the absence of evidence showing that the agency took similar actions against similarly situated non-whistleblowers). 1 Thus, the Board did not err in holding that the agency properly established by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action even absent Ms. Knowles’s protected disclosure.