Opinion ID: 546391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Opinion Read as a Whole

Text: 35 The most serious criticism that can be directed against the AJ's penalty discussion, id. at 14-17, is that it does not repeat all the findings stated earlier that are also relevant to penalty. For example, in the section analyzing the sustainability of each of the specifications, the AJ stated that Webster embarrassed and humiliated military personnel, Lt. Perna. Id. at 11. This could have been, but was not, explicitly repeated in the penalty discussion as relating to the Douglas factor concerning how the offenses affected his supervisors' confidence in [Webster's] ability to perform [his] duties, which included training military mail clerks. 5 M.S.P.R. at 305. Similarly, Webster was found insubordinate: He ignored instructions to assemble and remain in front of the post office during a fire drill, a time when even more than usual employees must be relied upon to follow instructions. See Disposition Form, by Willie L. McCain, Chief, Postal/Distribution Branch (Sept. 1, 1988), compiled in Board Record (Tab 4K-4). This incident, too, could have been discussed again in relation to the Douglas factor regarding Webster's dependability. 5 M.S.P.R. at 305. Likewise, Webster's other repeated incidents of disrespect and insubordination could have been discussed again in the context of the Douglas factor regarding whether the offense[§ were] intentional ... or frequently repeated. Id. 36 Each incident, however, was adequately detailed in the context of describing the charges sustained; they need not be repeated in the penalty discussion. In the final analysis, challenges to the organization of the AJ's opinion are simply not grounds for reversing the Board's decision.