Court Opinion

ID: 9963125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 17:01:08.114928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.274616
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CHRISTOPHER W. LEONARD,                         DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          AT-0752-21-0185-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: April 23, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Vicki S. Fuller , Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, for the appellant.

      Katherine Yourth , Esquire, Richmond, Virginia, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed his indefinite suspension following the interim suspension of his access
to classified information and/or assignment to duties designated national security
sensitive.   On petition for review, the appellant argues the following: (1) his
position did not require a security clearance; (2) the agency should have
reassigned him to a nonsensitive position; and (3) the administrative judge failed

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

to address his claims regarding discrimination, equal employment opportunity
(EEO) reprisal, and a hostile work environment. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
Tab 1 at 4-5, Tab 4 at 3.       The appellant also references a prior indefinite
suspension imposed by the agency. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. 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 petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting
the petition for review.    Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and
AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113(b).
      An indefinite suspension lasting more than 14 days is an adverse action
appealable to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d). 5 U.S.C. § 7512(2); Palafox v.
Department of the Navy, 124 M.S.P.R. 54, ¶ 8 (2016).              An agency may
indefinitely suspend an appellant when his access to classified information has
been suspended and he needs such access to perform his job.                Palafox,
124 M.S.P.R. 54, ¶ 8. In such a case, the Board lacks the authority to review the
merits of the decision to suspend the employee’s access. Id. Instead, the Board
will only review whether (1) the appellant’s position required access to classified
information, (2) his access to classified information was suspended, and (3) he
was provided with the procedural protections specified in 5 U.S.C. § 7513. Id.
The Board will also consider whether the agency provided the appellant with
                                                                                     3

minimum due process in taking the indefinite suspension action and whether the
agency provided the procedural protections required under its own regulations.
Id.
      The appellant challenges the administrative judge’s conclusion that his
position required a security clearance. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. To this end, he
avers that his position was merely designated noncritical sensitive.         Id.   The
appellant’s   unsubstantiated   disagreement   with   the   administrative    judge’s
conclusion regarding the requisite security clearance for his position, however,
does not provide a basis to disturb the same. See Riggsbee v. Office of Personnel
Management, 111 M.S.P.R. 129, ¶ 11 (2009) (explaining that an appellant’s mere
disagreement with the administrative judge’s explained factual findings and legal
conclusions therefrom does not provide a basis to disturb the initial decision).
Moreover, the appellant concedes that his position was designated noncritical
sensitive, and the agency’s action here was premised on his suspension from
access “to classified information and/or assignment to duties designated national
security sensitive.”   Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 16, 20, 40 (emphasis
added); see Flores v. Department of Defense, 121 M.S.P.R. 287, ¶¶ 4, 8 (2014)
(sustaining a charge based on the denial of eligibility to occupy a sensitive
position when the appellant’s position was designated noncritical sensitive and he
was denied eligibility to occupy a sensitive position). Thus, a different outcome
is not warranted.
      The appellant argues that, following the interim suspension of his access to
classified information and/or assignment to duties designated national security
sensitive, the agency should have reassigned him to a nonsensitive position in lieu
of indefinitely suspending him. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 4 at 3. To this end, he
asserts that he “believe[s] that [the a]gency ha[s reassigned] other employees who
had security clearance issues.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. The Board may consider
whether an agency has a formal policy requiring reassignment and, if so, whether
a position to which an appellant could have been reassigned existed.               See
                                                                                       4

Blagaich v. Department of Transportation, 90 M.S.P.R. 619, ¶ 16 (2001), aff’d,
63 F. App’x 476 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, however, the appellant’s apparent belief
that a policy existed does not provide a basis to disturb the administrative judge’s
conclusion, based on witness testimony, that the agency did not have a formal
reassignment policy.      IAF, Tab 19, Initial Decision (ID) at 4; see Haebe v.
Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that,
when an administrative judge’s credibility findings are based, explicitly or
implicitly, on the observation of the demeanor of witnesses testifying at a
hearing, the Board may overturn such determinations only when it has
“sufficiently sound” reasons for doing so).          Thus, the appellant’s assertion
regarding reassignment is unavailing. 2
      The appellant contends that the administrative judge erred by failing to
consider his allegations regarding discrimination, EEO reprisal, and a hostile
work environment. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 4 at 3. We disagree. Indeed, as
correctly set forth in the initial decision, ID at 4 n.3, the Board is not permitted to
adjudicate whether an adverse action premised on the revocation of access to
classified information constitutes impermissible discrimination or reprisal,
Putnam v. Department of Homeland Security, 121 M.S.P.R. 532, ¶ 18 (2014).
Thus, a different outcome is not warranted.
      Last, the appellant references a prior, rescinded suspension action taken by
the agency and seemingly alleges that the agency failed to properly cancel this
prior action before initiating the subject action. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. This vague
allegation, however, does not provide a basis to disturb the initial decision. See
Tines v. Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992) (explaining that
a petition for review must contain sufficient specificity to enable the Board to
ascertain whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge and concluding that the

2
  To the extent the appellant argues that the agency’s purported reassignment of other
employees is indicative of disparate treatment, the Board lacks the authority to consider
his argument.
                                                                                      5

appellant’s petition contained neither evidence nor argument demonstrating error
by the administrative judge).
      Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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.
      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).

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.
                                                                                        6

      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
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
                                                                                  7

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:
                            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
                                                                                      8

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).
      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

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.
                                                                             9

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.