Opinion ID: 176998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merit Systems Protection Board Decision

Text: On December 5, 2008, Kugler appealed her removal to the Board. The initial decision by the AJ affirmed the agency’s action finding that 1) the action promoted the efficiency of the service and 2) the penalty of removal was within tolerable bounds of reasonableness. According to the AJ, the agency showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the discipline of removing Kugler promoted the efficiency of service because a sufficient correlation was established between her off-duty misconduct and her employment. This correlation was shown clearly through Kugler’s alcohol-related crime, her loss of a CDL, and Ms. DeHart’s testimony that she lost confidence in Kugler’s ability to represent or model appropriate behavior. The AJ reviewed the penalty to determine whether it was within tolerable bounds of reasonableness. This involved a consideration of the Douglas factors. Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (M.S.P.B. 1981). The AJ found that Kugler’s position, requiring her to be a life-model and also requiring her to transport students, especially in the case of an emergency, weighed against her in assessing the seriousness of the offense. KUGLER v. AGRICULTURE 4 The AJ considered Kugler’s admission to being a recovering alcoholic, but found that Kugler was not entitled to mitigation of the penalty based on her potential for rehabilitation. Thus the AJ held that removal was reasonable for the sustained offense given Kugler’s prior disciplinary history. Kugler petitioned for review by the Board, but it denied her petition. Although the Board did not grant review, it specifically added to footnotes to the denial. It first noted that the AJ did not abuse her discretion by limiting discovery. Second, it noted that there was no legal basis to support Kugler’s argument that the Department of Agriculture did not have the authority to remove her for misconduct that occurred while employed by the Department of the Interior. Therefore the AJ’s initial decision became final when the petition for review was denied. A timely appeal to this court followed. This court has jurisdiction over her appeal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).