Opinion ID: 209528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Jaramillo’s Contentions on Appeal

Text: In his informal brief, Mr. Jaramillo contends that the Board erred in numerous ways. For example, he asserts that “no evidence to support [the] charges [against him] was found or produced.” He also argues that false evidence was considered. We cannot agree. AJ Ringler heard evidence from the investigating officer of the incident. The officer’s testimony was based on the statements from the bus driver and several students. The statements of those witnesses are remarkably consistent, each describing a situation in which a perturbed Mr. Jaramillo entered the school bus without authorization, confronted students about the offending missile, and claimed that he had “something” for the students in his truck. Two students recounted seeing the gun, which they thought, at the time, was a rifle or shotgun. The investigating police officer testified that the BB-gun closely resembled a shotgun. The officer opined that Mr. Jaramillo had committed aggravated assault. Thus, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Mr. Jaramillo committed egregious off-duty conduct. 2008-3228 5 Mr. Jaramillo also appears to challenge the credibility determination made by AJ Ringler. Given the conflicting testimony of the officer and Mr. Jaramillo, AJ Ringler had to make a credibility determination. We give special deference to the AJ’s analysis of credibility. See Hambsch v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (characterizing credibility determinations as “virtually unreviewable”). “[This] simply recognizes the reality that the conduct of a witness while testifying may fairly detract from the written word.” Jackson v. Veterans Admin., 768 F.2d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1985). AJ Ringler was in a much better position than we are today to assess who was more believable. AJ Ringler properly considered the relevant evidence in assessing the credibility of each witness. While individual pieces of evidence relating to credibility might be viewed differently, our limited role is not to reweigh the facts but to assess whether the Board’s credibility determination as a whole is supported by substantial evidence. And we conclude that it is. Mr. Jaramillo also disputes the reasonableness of the penalty. First, however, Mr. Jaramillo does not dispute that removal is an authorized penalty. Second, the Board considered the relevant Douglas factors, including the mitigating evidence submitted by Mr. Jaramillo. Although the incident occurred when Mr. Jaramillo was offduty and did not directly involve any other personnel of DLI, the Board sufficiently supported its finding that Mr. Jaramillo’s removal would promote the efficiency of the service. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Moreland testified that Mr. Jaramillo failed to show any remorse shortly after the incident. Furthermore, the Board found that, given the politicallysensitive image of DLI and the importance of good will in DLI’s international community, removal was at least a reasonable penalty, if not the most or only reasonable one. In 2008-3228 6 the end, we agree with the Board that removal was not an unreasonable penalty for the proven conduct. See Hayes v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1539-40 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (affirming removal as an appropriate penalty in instance of an off-duty assault and battery of a child).