Court Opinion

ID: 9476670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:01:53.256542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:26.524869
License: Public Domain

BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I must dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the board’s determination that the FAA has carried its burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of strike participation and AWOL by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1)(B); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(l)(ii). The issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s decision that the agency made a prima facie case of strike participation for each petitioner. 5 U.S.C. § 7703. To establish the charge of strike participation, the FAA came forward with proof of a strike of general knowledge coupled with documents purporting to establish absence without authorization by each of the petitioners.* Much of that documentation was incomplete, inconsistent, and/or altered after-the-fact. Those records having not been prepared in the ordinary cause of business, the board should have concluded that those records could not serve as evidence against anyone.
This unreliable documentation created a record that is so flawed, in the first instance, as to undermine its probative value, and prevent the establishment of a prima facie case. Such records are hearsay which could be acceptable in administrative hearings to provide a substantial evidence basis for agency charges if, to a reasonable mind, the circumstances are such to lend it credence. Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1538 (Fed.Cir.1984). The alterations and inconsistencies in the documents, however, are circumstances which destroy the acceptability of the entire record.
Although the majority recognizes discrepancies in the record, primary weight is accorded to the determination by the board that there was no attempt by the FAA to commit a fraudulent act, a forgery, a misrepresentation, or to commit perjury. I take no issue with the board’s “virtually unreviewable” credibility determination regarding the lack of any improper intent on the part of the FAA. In focusing on the motives of the FAA, however, the board has missed the key issue of the reliability of the record upon which the FAA case is based.
Although deference is to be accorded to an administrative determination, we, the reviewing court, retain a responsibility to scrutinize the entire record and to reverse or remand a decision which is not supported by substantial evidence. The circumstances surrounding creation of the FAA’s documentation has undermined the probative value of the evidence against pe*1578titioners. The FAA has failed to provide reliable documentation as a substantial evidence basis for a prima facie case of absence without authorization.
*1579Because petitioner Boddie, an employee of respondent Navy Department at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, slapped a subordinate employee during a work-related altercation, the former was demoted from the supervisory position of General Foreman Pipefitter, WS-14, to the non-supervisory role of Production Shop Planner (Pipe Fitter), WG-6. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board), 31 M.S.P.R. 607 (1986), affirmed the charge and that sanction. We reverse for significant procedural error by the employing agency.

 Charges of absence without leave are supported by the same evidence that would support charges of strike participation. See Schapansky v. Department of Transp., FAA, 735 F.2d 477, 484 (Fed.Cir.1984). Unrebutted evidence showing that an employee withheld his services in concert with others would amount to proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Hale v. Department of Transp., FAA, 772 F.2d 882, 885 (Fed.Cir.1985).