Opinion ID: 211217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Board Review

Text: 11 Gose appealed his removal to the Board, arguing that [t]he only regulation which the Agency has heretofore cited to and alleged that the Appellant has violated is Section 661.54 Employee Relations — Conduct Use of Intoxicating Beverages. He further argued that he had not violated the provision on drinking in a public place while in uniform because he ha[d] limited his after work drinking to a private club . . . . (emphasis added). Gose argued that [t]he Agency fails to acknowledge a distinction between public and private places, yet the rule or regulation with which Appellant is charged, specifically limits itself to `public place.' 12 Because Gose does not dispute that he drank at the VFW post while in uniform while the LCA was in effect, the dispute in this case centers solely on whether or not the VFW is a public place, as that phrase is used in the relevant postal regulation. During the appeal to the MSPB, Ashworth testified before the administrative judge (AJ) that to the Postal Service any place is a public place that we serve. . . . [E]very citizen is a customer of ours. Ashworth explained that the VFW is a private place for membership, but as far as the Postal Service [is concerned] — as I say, any place . . . is public. Similarly, Tod O'Reilly (O'Reilly), Manager of Customer Service, testified that [postal employees] are always in public except when we're in our own homes. 13 The AJ rejected Gose's argument that the VFW is not a public place, noting the testimony of O'Reilly and Ashworth that a public place is anywhere that Postal Service customers can be found. The AJ adopted this definition, stating that [t]he intent of the Postal Service policy is to prevent its uniformed employees from drinking intoxicating beverages in public view, a circumstance clearly present in this case based on complaints from members of the public regarding his conduct. The AJ concluded that [b]ecause numerous Postal Service customers complained about the appellant's conduct, I find the conduct occurred in public, not in private. The Board subsequently rejected Gose's petition for review, and the decision of the AJ became final.