Opinion ID: 698472
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Holmes was employed by the VA for approximately four years as a police officer at the VA Medical Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, until he was removed on July 24, 1989. Holmes appealed his removal to the Board, but the appeal was dismissed after he and the VA entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which he resigned from the agency. The Board retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement. Holmes, 61 M.S.P.R. at 499. 3 Under paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement, the VA was obligated to provide a neutral reference to potential future employers who sought information regarding Holmes's VA employment history. The neutral reference requirement was spelled out in paragraph 8 of the agreement: 4 8. The neutral reference shall include but not be limited to date hired, position as Police Officer GS-5, history of fully satisfactory performance ratings, letters of appreciation received dated Jan. 2, 1986 and August 15, 1986, and present status of leave without pay for personal reasons as of July 24, 1989. No negative information shall be disclosed. It is understood by the parties that the Agency will issue a fully satisfactory performance rating for 1988-1989. 5 After leaving the VA, Holmes applied for a position as a Park Ranger with the National Park Service (Park Service). His name subsequently was removed from the list of persons eligible for the position, however. On May 7, 1993, Holmes filed a petition for enforcement with the Board. In it, he alleged that the VA had failed to comply with paragraph 8 of the settlement agreement by failing to give the Park Service a neutral reference with respect to his VA employment and that, as a result, the Park Service had removed his name from the list of those eligible for the Park Ranger position. In support of his petition, Holmes proffered a copy of a memorandum written by Stephen M. Sitarski of the Park Service. In the memorandum, Mr. Sitarski indicated that the Park Service had been unable to get a usable reference concerning Holmes from Ken McLean of the VA. As required by paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement, the VA had designated Mr. McLean as one of only two people authorized to give a neutral reference regarding Holmes's VA employment. 1 6 The Board issued an acknowledgement order on May 10, 1993, notifying the VA that it had 15 days to show proof that it had complied with the settlement agreement. The VA responded with an affidavit prepared by Mr. McLean, in which he summarily denied that he had failed to comply with paragraph 8 of the settlement agreement. In addition, the VA informed the administrative judge that it had learned that Debra Sturm of the Park Service was the person who had sought a reference on Holmes from Mr. McLean. The VA also informed the administrative judge that it had learned that Ms. Sturm had prepared a report of her telephone conversation with Mr. McLean. Further, the VA told the administrative judge that Vanessa Russell, Personnel Officer of the Park Service, had refused to provide Agency counsel with [the Sturm] report without a signed authorization from the Appellant and that Ms. Sturm herself had declined to speak with Agency counsel. The VA asked that Holmes's petition for enforcement be dismissed or, alternatively, that the Board order a full evidentiary hearing on the matter. In his reply to the VA's response, Holmes submitted the declaration of his attorney at that time, Sharon Dietrich. In her declaration, Ms. Dietrich referred to an unsigned, unsworn Declaration of Debra Sturm which she had prepared for Ms. Sturm's signature after speaking with her. Ms. Dietrich stated that Ms. Sturm had refused to sign the declaration, a copy of which Ms. Sturm attached to her own declaration. 7 Paragraphs 2 through 6 of the declaration which Ms. Sturm allegedly refused to sign read as follows: 8 2. Mr. McLean told me that he was not Mr. Holmes'[s] direct supervisor, but he confirmed that he was the person designated by the VA to supply a reference for Mr. Holmes. Although he said that there was no problem with Mr. Holmes, he did not provide any specific information. He said that he could not provide any specific information because he was not Mr. Holmes'[s] direct supervisor and did not have Mr. Holmes'[s] file in front of him. 9 3. Mr. McLean did not provide me with the date that Mr. Holmes was hired, nor did he tell me that Mr. Holmes had a history of fully satisfactory performance ratings, that he had received two letters of appreciation, or that he had taken leave without pay for personal reasons as of July 24, 1989. 10 4. Mr. McLean did not offer to call me back after he located Mr. Holmes'[s] file. I did not ask him to call back, because he was not Mr. Holmes'[s] direct supervisor, and I did not anticipate getting further information from him. 11 5. I found the contact with Mr. McLean to be a weird experience. I am accustomed to being referred to a designated person for a reference, but it was unusual to not be able to get any useful information from the designated person. 12 6. Because of the strangeness of this telephone call, I got the impression that Mr. Holmes had had a problem with the people with whom he had worked at the Veterans Administration. 13 In further support of his reply, Holmes submitted his own declaration. In it, he stated that he took to Ms. Sturm for her signature the declaration prepared by Ms. Dietrich. According to Holmes, Ms. Sturm read the declaration and said that as far as she recalled, it was correct. Holmes continued: she stated that she wanted to check her notes of her interview with Mr. McLean to be absolutely sure, and she wanted to speak with Vanessa Russell of the Personnel Department to get permission to sign it. Holmes stated that, when he returned later that day to pick up the statement, Ms. Sturm advised me that she would not sign it, because Ms. Russell had advised her not to sign it. 14 On August 4, 1993, the administrative judge issued his enforcement recommendation. Because, in his view, the McLean affidavit did not respond directly to the specific factual allegations raised by Holmes, the administrative judge concluded that the VA had not rebutted Holmes's allegations. Accordingly, he recommended that the agency be found in noncompliance with the neutral reference provisions in the settlement agreement and that Holmes be allowed to set aside the settlement agreement and go forward with his original claim. 15 On September 3, 1993, the VA filed a brief requesting that the Board set aside the administrative judge's enforcement recommendation. 2 Among other things, the agency stated that it was in possession of new and material evidence. Specifically, the VA told the Board that it had obtained a copy of the report Ms. Sturm prepared concerning her telephone conversation with Mr. McLean. According to the VA, the Sturm report corroborated Mr. McLean's denial that he had failed to provide a neutral reference, as required by the settlement agreement. In its brief, the VA outlined the steps it had undertaken to obtain the Sturm report: 16 After receipt of the Enforcement Recommendation of August 4, 1993, Agency counsel sought the assistance of the Justice Department to obtain information from the National Park Service. Prior to this time, counsel had used all reasonable and diligent efforts short of litigation to learn about the McLean interview from the Park Service. When the Assistant Superintendent of the Independence National Historical Park, Dennis Ridenbach, was put on notice of possible Justice Department intervention, he authorized his employees to cooperate. 17 Citing its decision in McDonough v. United States Postal Service, 60 M.S.P.R. 122, 125-26 (1993), as standing for the proposition that new evidence that constitutes a further explanation of the agency's efforts to comply with the Board's order will ... be considered, the Board agreed to consider the Sturm report. Holmes, 61 M.S.P.R. at 502. The Board viewed the Sturm report [a]s an elaboration of the explanation of what transpired during the telephone [conversation between Ms. Sturm and Mr. McLean and thus] a fuller explanation by the agency of its efforts to comply [with the settlement agreement]. Id. 18 Turning to the merits, the Board concluded that the Sturm report supported the VA's contention that, through Mr. McLean, it had provided a neutral reference within the meaning of paragraph 8 of the settlement agreement. Id. at 503. For this reason, the Board held that Holmes had not met his burden of establishing that the VA had breached the agreement, and denied the requested relief. Accordingly, the Board denied Holmes's request that the settlement agreement be rescinded. Id. From its opinion, there is no indication that, in reaching its decision, the Board considered the Sturm report together with the other evidence of record; namely, the Sitarski memorandum and the declarations submitted by Holmes as part of his reply to the VA's response to his enforcement petition.