Court Opinion

ID: 9944004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 16:00:33.962843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:01.181747
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MATTHEW A. MCCONNELL,                           DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         PH-0752-18-0113-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                    DATE: February 23, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Andrew Poulos, Jr. , Hamilton, New Jersey, for the appellant.

      Christopher Hawthorne , Esquire, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, for the
        agency.

                                        BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
sustained his removal.     On petition for review, the appellant asserts that the
administrative    judge   erroneously    interpreted   the   evidence,   statutes,   and
regulations in sustaining the agency’s leave-related charges. Petition for Review
(PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-8. He also claims that the administrative judge did not
1
   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                    2

properly address his claim of harmful error and failed to consider certain
mitigating factors relating to the penalty. Id. at 8-10.
      Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation
or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative
judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision
were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion,
and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material
evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due
diligence, was not available when the record closed.        Title 5 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).             After fully
considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the appellant has not
established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
address the administrative judge’s analysis of the appellant’s allegations of
harmful error and retaliation for equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity,
we AFFIRM the initial decision.
      The appellant asserts that the administrative judge failed to “analyze the
mandate of [Air Force Instruction (AFI)] 31-115 . . . when she determined that a
[Command-Directed Inquiry (CDI)] was not mandated.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 8.
The appellant contends that the administrative judge erroneously concluded that
the agency was not required to conduct a CDI to properly investigate his alleged
misconduct and that she misinterpreted the CDI Guide as “the regulation rather
than addressing AFI 31-115 which mandates that misconduct issues will be
(emphasis added) handled via a CDI investigation.” Id.
      Although the appellant raised this argument below, Initial Appeal File
(IAF), Tab 16 at 22, the administrative judge did not address it in the initial
decision, IAF, Tab 18 at 13-14. Therefore, we address it here. See Spithaler v.
                                                                                      3

Office of Personnel Management, 1 M.S.P.R. 587, 589 (1980) (an initial decision
must identify all material issues of fact and law, summarize the evidence, resolve
issues of credibility, and include the administrative judge’s conclusions of law
and his legal reasoning, as well as the authorities on which that reasoning rests).
      The Board will not sustain an agency’s decision if the appellant “shows
harmful error in the application of the agency’s procedures in arriving at such
decision.”   5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(A).      The Board may not assume that an
employee has been harmed by a procedural error; rather, the appellant must prove
harm. Defense Intelligence Agency v. Department of Defense, 122 M.S.P.R. 444,
¶ 13 (2015). A procedural error is harmful when it was likely to have caused the
agency to reach a conclusion different from the one it would have reached in the
absence or cure of the error. Id.; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(r).
      AFI 31-115, entitled “Security Forces Investigations Program,” generally
appears to address the conduct of criminal investigations, which are not at issue
in this appeal. IAF, Tab 16 at 117, 121-23. Nevertheless, AFI 31-115 ¶ 2.1.5,
which covers internal Security Forces investigations, provides that “[d]iscipline
and general misconduct issues will be handled via a Commander-Directed Inquiry
(CDI) assigned by the DFC [Defense Force Commander] to a unit Senior
Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) or Officer.” Id. at 123. It is unclear whether
this provision applied to all discipline and general misconduct issues involving
internal Security Forces investigations, or only to those involving potential
criminal conduct. Nevertheless, even assuming that AFI 31-115 ¶ 2.1.5 applied
in this case, the appellant has not shown by preponderant evidence that any
failure to conduct a CDI likely caused the agency to reach a conclusion different
from the one it would have reached in the absence or cure of such error.         See
5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2) (requiring appellants to prove affirmative defenses by
preponderant evidence). Although the appellant asserted that a fair, thorough,
and objective CDI before initiating the removal action would likely have caused a
reasonable deciding official to reach a different conclusion, IAF, Tab 16 at 22, he
                                                                                      4

provided no evidence in support of this statement. Mere speculation as to what
might have happened if certain procedures had been followed does not establish
harm. Defense Intelligence Agency, 122 M.S.P.R. 444, ¶ 15. Thus, we find that
the appellant has not shown harmful error in this case. 2

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      You may obtain
review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of
your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate
forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following
summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not
provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and
the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule
regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of
this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your
claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file
within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
chosen forum.
2
  In analyzing the appellant’s claim of retaliation for Title VII EEO activity, the
administrative judge applied the standard set forth in Warren v. Department of the
Army, 804 F.2d 654, 656-58 (Fed. Cir. 1986). ID at 14-16. However, claims of
retaliation for engaging in Title VII EEO activity are analyzed under the same
framework used for Title VII discrimination claims. Pridgen v. Office of Management
and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 30. Nevertheless, because the appellant does not
challenge the administrative judge’s analysis of this affirmative defense and because it
is not obvious that application of the correct analytical framework would yield a
different result, we decline to readjudicate this issue. See Panter v. Department of the
Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding that an adjudicatory error that is not
prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis to reverse an initial
decision); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115 (“The Board normally will consider only issues raised in
a timely filed petition or cross petition for review.”).
3
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                         5

      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.                5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition    to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review    of   cases      involving   a   claim      of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
                                                                                  6

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.    5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security.        See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                                                                                      7

                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant     to   the    Whistleblower      Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),
(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  8

      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.