Opinion ID: 212045
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Carson's Present Individual Right of Action

Text: 21 On October 3, 2000, Carson filed a second IRA, 6 alleging that the Agency's failure to transfer him to ORO effective in September 1999 and its subsequent failure to consider and/or select him for any one of the three GS-15 positions at ORO for which he applied in November 1999 and February 2000 constituted reprisal for his whistleblowing activity. 22 On February 27, 2002, the AJ dismissed the second IRA appeal as Carson failed to prove that the reason he was not transferred to ORO sooner was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The AJ explained that the organization that failed to reassign him was not the organization that took retaliatory action against him. At best, the appellant demonstrated that there was a lack of communication between himself and ORO. Having found no retaliatory motive, the AJ declined to further address Carson's resulting nonselection for the three GS-15 positions at ORO. The AJ did note, however, that Carson was not entitled to priority consideration for GS-15 positions, as (1) he was not subject to a reduction in force, and (2) he could not invoke the transfer preference statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3352. With respect to the latter, the AJ explained that [t]he statute provides that a whistleblower is entitled to a transfer preference to positions of the `same status and tenure as the position of such employee on the date of applying for a transfer ....' Because Carson was attempting to obtain a promotion by invoking that statute, his claim [was] unavailing. 23