Opinion ID: 722408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Erickson

Text: 6 The Department of the Treasury employed Lester R. Erickson as a Supervisory Police Officer with the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. The agency removed Erickson for conduct unbecoming a supervisor and for making false statements in matters of official interest. The first charge was based on the agency's allegation that Erickson encouraged an employee of an agency contractor to make a mad laugher telephone call to another agency police officer during duty hours. The mad laugher calls were calls to employees at their duty stations during which the caller would laugh continuously and then hang up without identifying himself or herself. 7 The falsification charge was based on Erickson's denials that he participated in the mad laugher calls. In particular, when responding to a list of questions from an agency investigator, he made the following allegedly false statements: 8 Question 2: Approximate the number of occasions you made 'Mad Laugher' calls and to whom by name? 9 Answer: None. 10 Question 6: Approximate time you quit participating in 'Mad Laugher' calls. 11 Answer: I never participated. 12 Question 9: Specifically, how many times did you ask your subordinates to cease the 'Mad Laugher' calls? 13 Answer: None, [b]ecause I do not know who is doing it. 14 Question 12: Are you willing to specifically state all those that are participants in the 'Mad Laugher' telephone calls. 15 Answer: No--I do not know the true identification of the 'Mad Laugher.' In my opinion it is 95% of the police unit [and] also possibly personnel in Production. 16 In an initial decision, an AJ upheld both charges. The agency provided a sworn statement and subsequent affidavit by the person who was allegedly encouraged by Erickson to make one of the mad laugher calls. The statement and affidavit affirmed the truth of the charges, and the AJ found them to be credible. The AJ also found that the agency had told Erickson to refrain from making mad laugher calls and that encouraging another to engage in such a prank was disruptive to the agency's mission. Further, based on the AJ's belief in the credibility of the statements in the affidavit, as well as affidavits of others, the AJ found that Erickson had knowledge of and participated in the mad laugher calls and that he made false statements when he denied such involvement. The AJ also held that Erickson had not established that the agency's action was based on an alleged handicapping condition of alcoholism. Accordingly, the AJ upheld the penalty of removal. 17 Erickson petitioned for review by the full board. The board determined that his petition did not meet the criteria for review under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115; however, it reopened the case on its own motion under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117. The board upheld the misconduct charge. However, based on its Walsh decision, the board reversed the falsification finding, stating that the essence of the charge was Erickson's failure to admit that he participated in mad laugher calls, and that he was charged with encouraging another to make such a call, not for his own alleged participation, and that was a matter not within the agency's concern. The board mitigated the penalty to a 15-day suspension, stating that under its Walsh holding it would not consider Erickson's allegedly false statements in determining an appropriate penalty for the misconduct.