Opinion ID: 472272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stumpf

Text: 8 Petitioner Stumpf's argument is that he was either on approved annual leave or had regular days off for the entire period from August 3 through August 10, 1981--and that he was never notified that his leave was cancelled. The presiding official found that (a) Stumpf was not on approved annual leave for as much time as he claimed; (b) he was aware that, in the event of a strike, his leave would be cancelled; and (c) he must have been aware of the existence of the strike. These findings are supported by substantial evidence and stemmed from unassailable determinations of credibility. E.g., Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361 (Fed.Cir.1985). Furthermore, petitioner admitted that he had earlier been ordered to report for work or to call the facility for an assignment in the event of a strike. He never did so but continued to stay away. 9 AFFIRMED.