Opinion ID: 592303
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Petitioner's Disclosure to Congress

Text: 43 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) Supp. II 1990) states that This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the withholding of information from the Congress or the taking of any personnel action against an employee who discloses information to the Congress. Petitioner argues that because his dissemination of confidential information to the management of MCM included a suggestion to share the information with members of Congress, that his disclosure is protected by § 2302(b). The Board rejected Petitioner's argument as does this court. 44 As noted by the Board, the Petitioner testified that he neither shared his letter with any member of Congress nor believed that the management of MCM would follow his suggestion to do so. Moreover, it is undisputed that the Agency dismissed the Petitioner not for disclosing information to a member of Congress but instead for disclosing information to the officer of a savings and loan association under its supervision. This court concurs with the Board that 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) offers no relief to the Petitioner. D. Disqualification of Administrative Judge 45 Petitioner argues that the AJ demonstrated that he had reached a conclusion on the merits of Petitioner's claims prior to the presentation of evidence by the parties as evidenced by his denial of Petitioner's motion for a stay of his removal in an order issued on January 15, 1991. Petitioner's subsequent motion for the AJ to disqualify himself was denied. This court affirms the AJ's decision. 46 There is a strong presumption in the law that administrative actions are correct and taken in good faith. Sanders v. United States Postal Serv., 801 F.2d 1328, 1331 (Fed.Cir.1986). More specifically, [i]t is well established that there is a presumption that public officers perform their duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with law and governing regulations and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove otherwise. Parsons v. United States, 670 F.2d 164, 166 (Ct.Cl.1982) (citing United States v. Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 6, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926)). 47 Here, the AJ was required to make a finding as to whether there was a substantial likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on the merits. That finding necessitated his examination of the facts surrounding Petitioner's discharge and the formation of an initial impression of Petitioner's contentions. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the AJ's subsequent thorough and complete review of the facts and law of this case were in any way tainted by a predisposition in favor of the Agency. Accordingly, the court affirms the AJ's denial of Petitioner's motion to disqualify him.