Court Opinion

ID: 9958212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 15:02:22.067892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.181398
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2031    Document: 25     Page: 1   Filed: 04/08/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                CEDRIC J. DRAWHORN,
                      Petitioner

                             v.

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-2031
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in Nos. DC-0752-15-0332-I-4, DC-0752-15-0851-I-4.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: April 8, 2024
                  ______________________

    CEDRIC J. DRAWHORN, Centreville, VA, pro se.

     EMMA EATON BOND, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

      Before DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-2031     Document: 25     Page: 2    Filed: 04/08/2024

 2                                           DRAWHORN v. SEC

 PER CURIAM.
    Cedric Drawhorn appeals from a decision of the Merit
 Systems Protection Board (“Board”), sustaining his re-
 moval as a Security Officer at the U.S. Securities and Ex-
 change Commission (“SEC”). Because the decision was
 supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Drawhorn held a position as a Security Officer at
 the SEC. He held a top secret security clearance, and his
 position was designated as “critical sensitive.” S.A. 9. 1 On
 November 3, 2014, the SEC sent Mr. Drawhorn a letter,
 notifying him that his security clearance was being sus-
 pended and, four days later, sent Mr. Drawhorn a notice of
 proposed action and intent to revoke his security clearance.
 The notice included a statement of reasons for the revoca-
 tion, including evidence that he attempted to conceal a per-
 sonal relationship with a recent hire that he selected to fill
 a vacancy within the SEC. On November 17, 2014, the
 SEC proposed that Mr. Drawhorn be indefinitely sus-
 pended, and on November 26, 2014, the SEC revoked his
 security clearance. The suspension was effective December
 19, 2014. On May 13, 2015, the SEC proposed that Mr.
 Drawhorn be removed from his position.
      Mr. Drawhorn was removed based on the charge of
 “Failure to Maintain a Condition of Employment.” S.A. 48.
 The removal was effective June 20, 2015. Because his crit-
 ical sensitive position as a Security Officer required him to
 maintain eligibility for access to classified information and
 the revocation of his security clearance made him ineligible
 for that access, he was found to be “unable to satisfy a re-
 quirement of [his] position.” S.A. 48.

     1   S.A. refers to the supplemental appendix attached
 to the respondent’s informal brief, ECF No. 18.
Case: 23-2031    Document: 25      Page: 3    Filed: 04/08/2024

 DRAWHORN v. SEC                                            3

      Mr. Drawhorn appealed to the Board, challenging his
 indefinite suspension and removal from his position. In an
 initial decision, the administrative judge sustained the re-
 moval and suspension, finding that “the agency’s actions
 suspending and removing the appellant are supported by a
 preponderance of the evidence.” S.A. 24. Mr. Drawhorn
 petitioned for review of the initial decision before the full
 Board. Because of a recusal, there was a lack of quorum of
 the Board, and the initial decision became the final deci-
 sion of the Board.
     Mr. Drawhorn appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant
 to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
     The scope of our judicial review is limited by 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(c). We review decisions of the Board for whether
 they are “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
 or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with-
 out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
 been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “We review the Board’s legal determi-
 nations de novo and its factual findings for substantial ev-
 idence.” Bryant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 26 F.4th 1344,
 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d
 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
                               I
      In his informal brief, Mr. Drawhorn argues that the
 Board’s decision should be set aside because “[t]he [Board]
 did not review [his] Petition for Review of the initial deci-
 sion due to Lack of Quorum.” Appellant Informal Op. Br.
 3. Mr. Drawhorn requests that this court “review the mer-
 its of [his] initial Petition for Review to the Board,” using
 the same standard of review as the full Board decision
 would have used. Id. This we cannot do.
    The statutory standard of review in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)
 does not change where, as here, there is no Board review of
Case: 23-2031    Document: 25      Page: 4    Filed: 04/08/2024

 4                                           DRAWHORN v. SEC

 the initial decision. There is no basis in the absence of a
 quorum for this court to conduct de novo review.
                              II
     To the extent that Mr. Drawhorn asks us to review the
 decision of the Board because it allegedly “is contrary to
 law and fails to properly analyze pertinent record evi-
 dence,” Appellant Informal Op. Br. 9, we are only able to
 review “whether the administrative determination is sup-
 ported by substantial evidence as a whole.” Haebe v. Dep’t
 of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
      To affirm a decision of the Board, “[t]he record need
 only disclose such relevant evidence as might be accepted
 by a reasonable mind as adequate to support the conclusion
 reached.” Hayes v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537
 (Fed. Cir. 1984). While Mr. Drawhorn alleges that “the
 SEC never established that [his] position required a secu-
 rity clearance,” Appellant Informal Op. Br. 3, substantial
 evidence supports the finding that eligibility to hold a se-
 curity clearance was a requirement of Mr. Drawhorn’s po-
 sition.
      In reaching the conclusion that Mr. Drawhorn failed to
 “maintain access to classified information which [was] a re-
 quirement of [his] position,” S.A. 18 (second alteration in
 original), the administrative judge relied on the testimony
 of the then-Branch Chief of Personnel Security Operations,
 Kelly Gibbs, “that all SEC positions that are designated
 critical sensitive require a security clearance” and the fact
 that “the appellant failed to credibly identify any employee
 who occupied a critical sensitive position but was ineligible
 for a clearance or failed to have a clearance.” S.A. 21. The
 administrative judge found that Ms. Gibbs “testified credi-
 bly when she asserted that all employees at the SEC who
 are in critical sensitive designated positions are required
 to hold a clearance.” S.A. 18–19 (footnote omitted). The
 administrative judge explained that Ms. Gibbs’ demeanor
 was “calm, confident, and forthright.”              S.A. 20.
Case: 23-2031    Document: 25      Page: 5   Filed: 04/08/2024

 DRAWHORN v. SEC                                           5

 “[C]redibility determinations by the board are ‘virtually
 unreviewable.’” Wright v. U.S. Postal Serv., 183 F.3d 1328,
 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Hambsch v. Dep’t of Treas-
 ury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The conclusion
 that Mr. Drawhorn failed to maintain a condition of his em-
 ployment is supported by substantial evidence.
    We have considered Mr. Drawhorn’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive.
                       AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.