Opinion ID: 1899037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Agency.

Text: In an official letter, Deputy Fire Chief Philip Matthews, the administrator of the Communications Division, proposed that Hutchinson be removed for inefficiency, specifically, the [f]ailure to satisfactorily perform one or more major duties of his ... position. See D.C.Code § 1-617.1(d)(3) (1992) (inefficiency is cause for removal); D.C. Personnel Regs. § 1603.1(c), 34 D.C.Reg. 1845, 1850 (1987) (same). In the parlance of the D.C. Personnel Regulations, Matthews acted as the proposing official and his recommendation of a removal was the proposed penalty. See D.C. Personnel Regs. §§ 1609.1, 1609.5, 34 D.C.Reg. at 1854. This was Hutchinson's third instance of inefficiency; [1] removal was therefore an appropriate penalty in the Table of Appropriate Penalties, D.C. Personnel Regs. § 1618.1, 34 D.C.Reg. at 1863. The Department appointed a disinterested designee, Deputy Fire Chief Joseph Quander, Jr., to review the proposed action before making a recommendation to the deciding official, Fire Chief R. Alfred. See D.C. Personnel Regs. §§ 1613.1-1613.3, 34 D.C.Reg. at 1857. Quander recommended a ninety-day suspension. Pursuant to D.C. Personnel Regs. § 1614.1, 34 D.C.Reg. at 1858, Alfred evaluated Quander's report and issued his final decision: that the proposed penalty of removal was appropriate and Hutchinson should be removed.