Opinion ID: 783156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 10 Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Specifically, we must affirm the Board's decision unless we find it to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000); Kewley v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed.Cir.1998). 11 On appeal, Mr. Musick makes two arguments. First, he refers to the fact that, in February of 2001, security personnel barred him from entering agency facilities. In that regard, he states that [i]nstead of removing the documentation the security department was placed on high alert to prevent me from any access to the Department. (See attached memo to all security officials). The memorandum to which Mr. Musick refers is dated February 6, 2001. It reads as follows: 12 Please notify all Protective Force members to be alert for the attempted access by WILLIAM J. MUSICK. MUSICK has resigned and returned his DOE badge to this office. If MUSICK attempts to enter a DOE Headquarters facility he is to be denied access. Should MUSICK have any questions reference [sic] his access denial he is [to] contact Labor Relations at 6-6603. The Protective Force is not required nor responsible for contacting Labor Relations. 13 Mr. Musick appears to argue that the February 6, 2001 memorandum is a document that was maintained in his OPF in violation of the settlement agreement. This contention is without merit. As can be seen, the memorandum makes no mention of Mr. Musick's removal or any of the events leading up to it. 14 Second, Mr. Musick argues that Member Slavet correctly interpreted the settlement agreement as requiring the agency to remove related documents from all agency files and that she correctly concluded that the agency materially breached the agreement. The agency responds that the settlement agreement only required it to remove and amend documentation in Mr. Musick's OPF. The agency states that Mr. Musick's OPF was purged of all documentation regarding his removal in accordance with the settlement agreement. 15 A settlement agreement is a contract, the interpretation of which is a question of law. See Greco v. Dep't of Army, 852 F.2d 558, 560 (Fed.Cir.1988). In entering into the settlement agreement, Mr. Musick was represented by counsel, and he acknowledged that he was voluntarily agreeing to the agreement's terms and conditions. Paragraph 3 of the settlement agreement, which we quote above, provided that all documentation relating to and culminating in Mr. Musick's removal would be removed from his Official Personnel File (OPF). While paragraph 3 is poorly drafted, we believe the only reasonable reading of the paragraph is that the agency only obligated itself to remove pertinent material from Mr. Musick's OPF. Paragraph 3 specifies the material to be removed (all documentation relating to and culminating in Mr. Musick's removal, dating back to January 1998 where the Agency proposed to place Mr. Musick on enforced sick leave, and including all documentation proposing to remove Mr. Musick from his position). At the same time, and most importantly, it identifies only one place from which the specified material is to be removed. That place is the OPF (from his Official Personnel File). In short, whatever deficiencies there may be in the wording of paragraph 3, as far as the issue before us is concerned, the paragraph is clear. The agency was only required to remove documentation from Mr. Musick's OPF. 16 King v. Dep't of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031 (Fed.Cir.1997), does not help Mr. Musick. In King, Laura King and the Department of the Navy entered into a settlement agreement relating to Ms. King's appeal of her removal. The agreement stated that the Navy agreed to cancel the removal action of the appellant ... and remove all reference to the removal action from [Ms. King's] Official Personnel File. Id. at 1033. Subsequently, through a Freedom of Information Act inquiry, Ms. King learned that records of OPM and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) contained references to the removal action. She thereafter brought an action to enforce the settlement agreement. The Board denied the petition after concluding that the reference in the settlement agreement to Ms. King's official personnel file meant only the personnel file in the possession of the Navy and did not include the personnel files of OPM and DFAS. Id. Ms. King appealed the Board's decision, and we reversed. We stated that, in entering into a settlement agreement like Ms. King's, the employee's goal, to which the agency has agreed, is to eliminate th[e] information [related to the adverse action] as it may affect future employment with the government or elsewhere. Id. We concluded that [b]y correcting only those files in the hands of the Navy, and by retaining references in official government personnel files to the action that was subsequently revoked, Petitioner was denied the benefit of her agreement. Id. The critical difference between King and this case is that Mr. Musick has not alleged that records were maintained outside the agency in violation of the settlement agreement. For that reason, King does not help Mr. Musick. 17 There is one troublesome aspect to this case, however. In her separate opinion, upon which Mr. Musick relies, Member Slavet states: Although the agency alleged that it properly removed all documents related to the appellant's removal from his OPF, the agency never asserted that it removed all documents related to the appellant's removal from its files, and it actually submitted a document which referred to the appellant's removal. Musick, 93 M.S.P.R. at 31. The document to which Member Slavet referred is Attachment 5 to Ms. Talley's submission. It is a one-page statement titled Current Employment Record, and it pertains to Mr. Musick. The document refers to a REMOVAL, a RESIGNATION, and a CANCELLATION, and opposite each entry is the date August 28, 1999. The document was submitted by the agency to the AJ in response to Mr. Musick's claim that he had been improperly denied access to agency premises. In Ms. Talley's submission, the agency pointed to the document as establishing unacceptable behavior on Mr. Musick's part that presented a danger. As a result, the agency urged, it was appropriate for it to bar Mr. Musick from its facilities. In its brief in this court, the government did not address the question of whether the Current Employment Record — which clearly refers to Mr. Musick's removal, and which appears to be the kind of document that would be retained in an OPF — was an item that was retained in Mr. Musick's OPF, in violation of the settlement agreement. Neither does our review of the record provide an answer to the question. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the appropriate course is to vacate the decision of the Board and remand the case for a factual determination as to whether the Current Employment Record, or any other document referring to Mr. Musick's removal, was retained in his OPF in violation of the settlement agreement. 2