Court Opinion

ID: 9406839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-04 07:00:25.701079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.621590
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KERRI R. SCHWEGEL,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        CH-0714-19-0403-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: July 3, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Justin D. Cummins, Esquire, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the appellant.

           Pamela R. Saunders, Esquire, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     reversed the appellant’s removal. On petition for review, the agency argues that
     the administrative judge misapplied the substantial evidence standard .            The
     agency also argues that the administrative judge abused her discretion when she

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     refused to allow testimony concerning the appellant’s prior discipline and
     counseling. 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 petit ioner’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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
     make no determination as to the propriety of the administrative judge’s order of
     interim relief, 2 we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         The agency argues on review that the administrative judge misapplied the
     substantial evidence standard when she selected one reason able alternative over
     another.   Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 10-11.            We disagree.
     Substantial evidence is the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person,
     considering the record as a whole, might accept as adequate to support a
     conclusion, even though other reasonable persons might disagree.           5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.4(p). The administrative judge held a hearing and found that a reasonable
     person, considering the record as a whole, would not find that the appellant
     engaged in inappropriate conduct as the agency had charged. Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 29, Initial Decision at 8. Thus, based on the testimony before her, she
     determined that the agency’s evidence was not adequate to support a conclusion
     2
       We need not reach this issue because, by issuance of this Order, the appellant is
     afforded full relief.
                                                                                            3

     that the appellant engaged in inappropriate conduct. Id.; see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
     977, 985 (Fed. Cir 2006) (observing that substantial evidence means such relevant
     evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion);
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(p).      The Board must give deference to an administrative
     judge’s credibility determinations when they 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. Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301 (Fed. Cir.
     2002) . The agency’s arguments on review do not show that the administrative
     judge erred in finding that a reasonable person could not, under the circumstances
     presented, find that the appellant engaged in inappropriate conduct. 3
¶3         The agency also argues that the administrative judge abused her discretion
     by refusing to allow testimony concerning the appellant’s prior discipline and
     counseling. PFR File, Tab 1 at 16. In the prehearing conference summary that
     set forth restrictions on testimony of the agency’s witnesses, the administrative
     judge gave the parties 7 days to notify her if the prehearing conference summary
     was incorrect, and she informed the parties that, if they failed to timely do so,
     they would be bound by the issues and rulings therein. IAF, Tab 23 at 6. The
     agency did not respond, and its failure to do so precludes its do ing so on review.
     Tarpley v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 579, 581 (1988) (finding that a
     party’s failure to timely object to rulings on witnesses precludes their doing so on
     petition for review).

     3
       The agency’s argument that it possesses the sole authority to decide whether an
     employee’s conduct warrants discipline, PFR File, Tab 1 at 12-13, overlooks the
     statutory provisions providing that an administrative judge and the Board should uphold
     the agency’s decision, if the decision is supported by substantial evidence , 38 U.S.C.
     § 714(d)(2)(A), (d)(3)(B). In other words, although it set a low burden of proof for the
     agency to meet, Congress clearly envisioned a role for the Board and its administrative
     judge in reviewing agency actions. There is no support for the agency’s position tha t it
     possesses the sole authority to decide whether discipline is warranted .
                                                                                        4

¶4         Moreover, the appellant’s prior discipline and counseling are not admissible
     to prove the merits of the charge because the agency may not rely on prior
     conduct to establish that the appellant engaged in the same conduct in the incident
     at issue. See Young v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 706 F.3d
     1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (observing that reliance on prior conduct to prove
     whether an individual engaged in the same conduct on another occasion is
     inappropriate); Ibrahim v. Department of the Army, 30 M.S.P.R. 531, 536 (1986)
     (finding that under the guidance of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a), character
     evidence may not be introduced circumstantially to prove the conduct of the
     witness). 4 Thus, the administrative judge did not abuse her discretion in limiting
     the testimony of the agency’s witnesses to the incident at issue in the appeal.

                                           ORDER
¶5         We ORDER the agency to cancel the removal and to restore the appellant
     effective June 10, 2019. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d
     730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days
     after the date of this decision.
¶6         We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back
     pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Perso nnel
     Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this
     decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency ’s
     efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to
     provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the
     Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due,
     and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed
     amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.

     4
       Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to Board proceedings, the Board
     may look to them for guidance. Hayden v. U.S. Postal Service, 15 M.S.P.R. 296, 302
     (1983), aff’d, 758 F.2d 668 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Table).
                                                                                        5

¶7         We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
     when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
     taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
     the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶8         No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
     carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
     with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant
     believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
     should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
     fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
     any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶9         For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
     Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and
     Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
     necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
     are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
     documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
     Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
     made within the 60-day period set forth above.

                     NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                           YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                          ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
           You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
     fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of
     the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
     regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
     you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
     and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
                                                                                      6

You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
the initial decision on your appeal.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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 an d
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).

5
  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.
                                                                                        7

      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
                                                                                  8

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
                                                                                      9

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. 6   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 a t 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.uscour ts.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

6
   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.
                                                                           10

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:                            /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
                                     DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
                                               Civilian Pay Operations

                             DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST
The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay pursuant to
5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following checklist to ensure a
request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may substantially delay the
processing    of  a    back     pay    award.      More     information    may    be     found     at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by vendor pay,
not DFAS Civilian Pay.

☐   1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the specific
       dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket comments
as to why the documentation is not applicable:

☐   2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.

☐   3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.

☐   4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s until notified
       to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐   5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until notified to
       do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐   6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).

☐   7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the employee in a job
       undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment. Documentation includes
       W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc.         Also, include record of any
       unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation, CSRS/FERS retirement annuity
       payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums, or severance pay received by the
       employee upon separation.

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority under
5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment they may have
received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The annual leave will be
restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave ceiling will be restored to a
separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by
the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information
   describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
       a.   Employee name and social security number.
       b.   Detailed explanation of request.
       c.   Valid agency accounting.
       d.   Authorized signature (Table 63).
       e.   If interest is to be included.
       f.   Check mailing address.
       g.   Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
       h.   Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be
            collected (if applicable).
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
   Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable).
2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to
   return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
   type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave
   to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and
required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum
Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
       a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
       b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
       c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.
If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.