Court Opinion

ID: 9389723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 07:00:08.315669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.275501
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
                                      2023 MSPB 16
                            Docket No. PH-0714-19-0128-I-1

                                   Mikhail Semenov,
                                       Appellant,
                                            v.
                           Department of Veterans Affairs,
                                         Agency.
                                      April 25, 2023

           Mikhail Semenov, Newton, Massachusetts, pro se.

           Paul V. Usera, Bedford, Massachusetts, for the agency.

                                        BEFORE

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

                                OPINION AND ORDER

¶1        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained his performance-based removal under the authority of the Department
     of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017
     (VA Accountability Act), Pub. L. No. 115-41, § 202(a), 131 Stat. 862, 869-73
     (codified at 38 U.S.C. § 714). For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the
     petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND the appeal to the
     regional office for further adjudication consistent with this Opinion and Order .
     On remand, the administrative judge should: (1) apply the substantive elements
     for a performance-based charge under chapter 75; (2) provide the parties with an
                                                                                        2

     opportunity to present evidence and argument regarding whether the agency’s
     error in reviewing the proposed removal for substantial evidence was harmful;
     (3) consider the appellant’s claims of harmful procedural error regarding the
     validity of his performance standards and rating, as well as the authority of the
     proposing official; (4) address the appellant’s claim that the agency violated
     statutory provisions executing certain merit system principles; (5) reassess the
     appellant’s claim of national origin discrimination consistent with Pridgen v.
     Office of Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31; (6) address the appellant’s
     due process claim raised for the first time on review; (7) address the appellant’s
     additional disclosures and activities in anal yzing his whistleblower reprisal claim;
     and (8) review the agency’s penalty selection by considering the Douglas factors.

                                        BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant was a GS-13 Research Health Scientist at the Bedford,
     Massachusetts campus of the New England Geriatric Research Education and
     Clinical Center (GRECC), which was located in the Edith Nourse Rogers
     Memorial Veterans Hospital (Bedford VA). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9 at 9,
     76.   According to his position description, the appellant’s duties included
     overseeing research into certain aspects of neurodegenerative diseases such as
     Alzheimer’s disease.       Id. at 86. He also was expected to “[p]eriodically . . .
     communicate the results of new studies by writing and publishing original
     scientific papers.” Id.
¶3         The appellant’s performance was rated on a fiscal year (FY) basis. IAF,
     Tab 12 at 22. His performance standards for FY 2017, which ran from October 1,
     2016, to September 30, 2017, included the critical element of research. Id. One
     of the two goals under that element was publishing three or more peer-reviewed
     scientific papers.   Id.    The GRECC Director issued the appellant a letter of
     proposed reprimand on June 6, 2017. IAF, Tab 9 at 91-92. Among the concerns
     he expressed in the proposed reprimand was the appellant’s failure to demonstrate
                                                                                        3

     that he had made progress on his publishing goal. Id. at 91. However, the first
     line of the letter erroneously stated that the proposed action was to “admonish”
     rather than “reprimand” the appellant. Id. The Director therefore rescinded the
     June 6 letter. IAF, Tab 24 at 49, Tab 31, Hearing Compact Disc 1 (HCD 1)
     (testimony of a Bedford VA Human Resources (HR) Specialist). He issued a new
     proposed letter of reprimand on June 23, 2017, which correctly identified the
     nature of the proposed action. IAF, Tab 20 at 79 -80; HCD 1 (testimony of the
     HR Specialist).    The substance of the letter otherwise remained unchanged.
     Compare IAF, Tab 20 at 79-80, with IAF, Tab 9 at 91-92; HCD 1 (testimony of
     the HR Specialist). After the appellant failed to respond to the June 23, 2017
     proposed reprimand, the GRECC Director issued a decision reprimanding the
     appellant. IAF, Tab 9 at 94. At the end of FY 2017, the GRECC Director rated
     the appellant’s performance on his research goal as Unacceptable, resulting in an
     overall Unacceptable rating. 1 IAF, Tab 12 at 25-26.
¶4           The FY 2018 performance year ran from October 1, 2017, to September 30,
     2018.    IAF, Tab 9 at 69.    The Director provided the appellant his FY 2018
     performance standards in November 2017, reflecting the goal that, as relevant
     here, the appellant publish five peer-reviewed scientific papers during FY 2018.
     Id. On November 27, 2017, the appellant sent an email to the Director in which
     he objected to the increased publishing goal. IAF, Tab 20 at 82-84. The Director
     responded, declining to change the goal. Id. at 84. He wrote, in pertinent part, “I
     am the Director . . . and do set the standards for the productivity so there is no
     need for your assistance.” Id. However, a short time later, he sent an email to
     the appellant and another research scientist (Employee A) stating that he was

     1
       The performance of Bedford VA Research Health Scientists on any particular element
     is rated as Exceptional, Fully Successful, or Unacceptable. IAF, Tab 9 at 112, Tab 12
     at 25. An Unacceptable rating on a critical element results in a summary rating of
     Unacceptable. IAF, Tab 9 at 113, Tab 12 at 26.
                                                                                              4

     considering lowering the expectation to four published peer-reviewed papers.
     IAF, Tab 12 at 29, Tab 20 at 81.
¶5         The Director sent the appellant an email on November 28, 2017, that
     purportedly included a copy of the revised standards as an attachment; however,
     the version of the performance standards attached to the email did not reflect that
     the standards had been revised. IAF, Tab 9 at 67, 6 9. The appellant received a
     copy of his revised standards on December 12, 2017. Id. at 109. These standards
     reflected the lowered goal of publishing four peer-reviewed scientific papers. 2 Id.
     In October 2018, the Director rated the appellant’s performance on his research
     critical element for FY 2018, which included his publishing goal, as
     Unacceptable, and therefore rated his overall performance as Unacceptable. IAF,
     Tab 20 at 564-65.       The record contains a copy of the appellant’s appraisal
     reflecting that another individual signed off on this rating as the “approval
     official” in November 2018. Id. at 565.
¶6         On December 11, 2018, the GRECC Director issued a notice proposing to
     remove the appellant pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 714 for failing to achieve fully
     successful performance in his research critical element. IAF, Tab 9 at 76-78. In
     support of the charge, the Director alleged that the appellant did not publish a
     minimum of four peer-reviewed scientific papers, as required by his FY 2018
     performance standards. IAF, Tab 9 at 76, Tab 20 at 561.
¶7         The appellant responded orally and in writing to the Bedford VA Director,
     who was the deciding official. IAF, Tab 9 at 11, 18-74. In both responses, and in
     a subsequent email to the deciding official, he alleged various improprieties in the
     issuance of his FY 2017 and FY 2018 performance standards and appraisals .
     IAF, Tab 9 at 20, Tab 22 at 101-05. These improprieties included an allegation

     2
       Both the draft goals and the final version required the appellant and Employee A to be
     the “first or senior author” on all but one of the published pape rs. IAF, Tab 9 at 67, 69,
     109, Tab 12 at 29, Tab 20 at 81.
                                                                                        5

      that the proposing official altered the appellant’s FY 2018 performance standards
      after digitally signing them to make it appear that he timely presented those
      standards to the appellant. IAF, Tab 22 at 104. The appellant also advised the
      deciding official that he “had notified” the agency’s Office of the Inspector
      General (OIG) concerning the alleged improprieties. Id. at 102. On January 3,
      2019, the deciding official issued a decision finding that the charge was
      “supported by substantial evidence” and that removal was warranted. IAF, Tab 9
      at 11-13. The appellant was removed effective January 4, 2019. Id. at 9.
¶8         The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging his removal and requested a
      hearing. IAF, Tab 1 at 2-3. He raised an affirmative defense of discrimination
      based on his Eastern European national origin.      IAF, Tab 26 at 6-8, Tab 30
      at 24-25. He further alleged reprisal for his disclosures to the deciding official
      and OIG regarding the FY 2017 and FY 2018 performance processes.              IAF,
      Tab 26 at 4-6, Tab 30 at 73-77.
¶9         Following a hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
      affirming the appellant’s removal. IAF, Tab 38, Initial Decision (ID) at 2, 28.
      He found that the agency proved its charge by substantial evidence, ID at 17 -19,
      and that the appellant failed to prove his affirmative defenses , ID at 20-27. The
      administrative judge held that he was required to affirm the removal penalty
      under 38 U.S.C. § 714(d)(2)(B) because the agency had proven its charge by
      substantial evidence. ID at 27-28.
¶10        The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
      File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response in opposition to the petition, and the
      appellant has filed a reply to the agency’s response. PFR File, Tabs 3, 4.

                                           ANALYSIS
      We remand this appeal for the administrative judge to apply the substantive
      elements for a performance-based charge under chapter 75.
¶11        In analyzing whether the agency proved its charge, the administrative judge
      stated that, to establish that the appellant’s performance was unacceptable, the
                                                                                             6

      agency was required to prove by substantial evidence not only that the appellant
      failed to meet the publishing requirement, but also that the performance standard
      at issue was “reasonable, realistic, [and] attainable.” ID at 18 (quoting Thomas v.
      Department of Defense, 95 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶ 12 (2003), aff’d per curiam, 117 F.
      App’x 722 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).          That requirement derives from the Board’s
      precedent under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43. See Thomas, 95 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶ 6. For the
      reasons   set   forth   below,   we    find   that   the    elements   for   proving   a
      performance-based charge under chapter 43 do not apply to performance-based
      actions under the VA Accountability Act, and that the proper elements for such
      cases derive from the Board’s application of 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.
¶12        Federal agencies generally may rely on one of two statutory procedures in
      removing a tenured employee, 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, which covers both
      misconduct- and performance-based actions, or chapter 43, which covers only
      actions based on unacceptable performance. Brenner v. Department of Veterans
      Affairs, 990 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Harris v. Securities
      and Exchange Commission, 972 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sayers v.
      Department of Veterans Affairs, 954 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). For
      matters that involve employee behavior occurring after the June 23, 2017
      enactment of the VA Accountability Act, the Act provides the Department of
      Veterans Affairs with a third option when issuing a removal based on either
      performance or misconduct. 38 U.S.C. § 714; Brenner, 990 F.3d at 1316-18,
      1327-28; see Pub. L. No. 115-41, 131 Stat. at 882 (reflecting the June 23, 2017
      enactment date for the VA Accountability Act).
¶13        Chapter 75 authorizes adverse actions such as removals “only for such cause
      as will promote the efficiency of the service.”            5 U.S.C. §§ 7512, 7513(a);
      Brenner, 990 F.3d at 1316.       An agency is not required to follow chapter 43
      procedures before taking a performance-based action under chapter 75. Lovshin
      v. Department of the Navy, 767 F.2d 826, 844 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The
      procedural requirements for an action under chapter 75 begin with the agency’s
                                                                                        7

      notice to the employee that it is proposing disciplinary action.          5 U.S.C.
      § 7513(b).     In reviewing an action under chapter 75, the Board reviews the
      agency’s penalty determination and has the authority to mitigate to a lesser
      penalty.     Brenner, 990 F.3d at 1316-17; Douglas v. Veterans Administration,
      5 M.S.P.R. 280, 306 (1981).
¶14        Chapter 43 governs “the evaluation of a [F]ederal employee’s work
      performance.” Lovshin, 767 F.2d at 830 (emphasis omitted). It authorizes the
      reduction in grade or removal of an employee who has “fail[ed] to meet
      established performance standards in one or more critical elements of such
      employee’s position.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 4301(3), 4303(a). However, before taking an
      action under chapter 43, an agency must follow a series of procedural steps.
      Specifically, in order to properly remove or demote an employee under
      chapter 43, the agency must have (1) established a performance appraisal system
      approved by the Office of Personnel Management, (2) communicated the
      performance standards and critical elements of an employee’s position to him at
      the beginning of the appraisal period, (3) warned him of inadequacies in critical
      elements during the appraisal period, and (4) counseled and afforded him an
      opportunity to improve after proper notice. Lovshin, 767 F.2d at 833-34 & n.6.
      “Because of these procedural requirements and safeguards, [c]hapter 43 gives the
      agency ‘great[er] flexibility’ in its adverse action than [c]hapter 75.” Brenner,
      990 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Lovshin, 767 F.2d at 842 (“Agencies have been given
      great flexibility in the structure of appraisal systems . . . in order to be able to
      experiment and develop a system or systems that meet their particular needs .”)).
      Specifically, an agency need not establish a nexus between the poor performance
      and the efficiency of the service, and the Board is not authorized to mitigate the
      agency’s penalty. Id. at 1317. Additionally, actions under chapter 43 must be
      supported by substantial evidence to be sustained by the Board, whereas
                                                                                           8

      chapter 75 actions are subject to the higher preponderance of the evidence
      standard. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1); Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1378. 3 Thus, to prove its
      case under chapter 43, an agency must show by substantial evidence that :
      (1) OPM approved its performance appraisal system and any significant changes
      thereto; (2) the agency communicated to the appellant the performance standards
      and critical elements of his position; (3) the appellant’s performance standards
      are valid under 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c)(1); (4) the agency warned the appellant of the
      inadequacies of his performance during the appraisal period and gave him a
      reasonable    opportunity    to    demonstrate     acceptable    performance;      and
      (5) the appellant “continue[d] to have unacceptable performance” in one or more
      of the critical elements for which he was provided an opportunity to demonstrate
      acceptable performance. 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c); Lee v. Environmental Protection
      Agency, 115 M.S.P.R. 533, ¶ 5 (2010). Additionally, an agency must prove by
      substantial evidence that the appellant’s performance was unacceptable before the
      agency provided him with notice of his performance inadequacies and an
      opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance.              Santos v. National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration, 990 F.3d 1355, 1360-61, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
      2021) (interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c)(6)).
¶15        As indicated above, the VA Accountability Act provides the agency with an
      alternative procedure for taking disciplinary actions. Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1374
      (citations omitted).   The Act provides expedited procedures under which the
      Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“the Secretary”) “may remove,
      demote, or suspend” a covered agency employee “if the Secretary determines the

      3
        Substantial evidence is “[t]he 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).
      Preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable
      person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a
      contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
                                                                                           9

      performance or misconduct of the covered individual warrants such removal,
      demotion, or suspension.” 38 U.S.C. § 714(a)(1), (c)(1)-(2); Brenner, 990 F.3d
      at 1317-18. Chapter 43 procedures do not apply to performance-based actions
      taken under the Act. 5 U.S.C. § 4303(f)(4); 38 U.S.C. § 714(c)(3). On appeal
      from a decision under the Act, the administrative judge and the Bo ard “shall
      uphold the decision of the Secretary . . . if the decision is supported by
      substantial evidence.” 38 U.S.C. § 714(d)(2)(A), (3)(B). “[I]f the decision of the
      Secretary is supported by substantial evidence, the administrative judge [and the
      Board] shall not mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary.” 4 38 U.S.C.
      § 714(d)(2)(B), (3)(C).
¶16         The question before us here is what substantive standard the Board should
      apply to performance-based actions under the Act. The interpretation of a statute
      begins with the language of the statute itself. Graves v. Department of Veterans
      Affairs, 123 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 13 (2016). If the language provides a clear answer,
      the inquiry ends and the plain meaning of the statute is regarded as conclusive
      absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary. Id. The language of
      38 U.S.C. § 714 plainly precludes the Board from applying the elements of
      chapter 43 to an action under the VA Accountability Act.            In describing the
      procedures for taking an action under 38 U.S.C. § 714, the statute provides that
      “[t]he procedures under chapter 43 of title 5 shall not apply to a removal,
      demotion, or suspension under this section.”         38 U.S.C. § 714(c)(3).        The
      substantive standard for actions under chapter 43 is derived from the procedural
      requirements under that chapter.      See Mahaffey v. Department of Agriculture,
      105 M.S.P.R. 347, ¶ 7 (2007) (setting forth the elements for a chapter 43
      performance-based action by citing the portion of Lovshin, 767 F.2d at 834 that
      explains chapter 43’s procedural requirements); Graham v. Department of the Air

      4
       Nonetheless, as discussed further below, the Board must review the agen cy’s choice of
      penalty as part of its review of the removal decision. Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1375-79.
                                                                                     10

      Force, 46 M.S.P.R. 227, 235 (1990) (recognizing that the establishment of valid
      performance standards is an important substantive right of an employee under
      chapter 43). We therefore find that Congress did not intend that the Board apply
      the chapter 43 standard to performance-based actions under the Act.
¶17        In taking a chapter 75 performance-based action, an agency is not bound by
      any chapter 43 requirements, such as proving the validity of its performance
      standards, that it provided those standards in advance, or that it provided the
      employee with an opportunity to improve. See Shorey v. Department of the Army,
      77 M.S.P.R. 239, 243-44 (1998) (finding that an administrative judge erred in
      applying chapter 43 standards to a chapter 75 case, including the requirement that
      an agency prove that its standards are valid); Fairall v. Veterans Administration,
      33 M.S.P.R. 33, 40-45 (1987) (determining that an employee subject to a
      performance-based adverse action under chapter 75 has no right to an opportunity
      to improve (citing Lovshin, 767 F.2d at 844 (declining to find that the agency was
      required to prove the appellant’s performance deficiencies were in his critical
      elements because “the procedural prerequisites of a [c]hapter 43 action . . . are
      . . . inapplicable” to an action taken under chapter 75))), aff’d per curiam,
      844 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Graham, 46 M.S.P.R. at 235-36 (explaining that in
      a performance-based chapter 75 action, an agency is not required to prove the
      validity of its standards and it is not required to establish and identify those
      standards in advance).
¶18        In the context of actions taken under chapter 75, agencies have great
      discretion in setting goals, provided they do not charge an employee with failing
      to have performed better than was required under his chapter 43 critical elements.
      See Lovshin, 767 F.2d at 842-43 (recognizing that agencies that have failed to
      properly define or evaluate performance standards under chapter 43 a re
      nonetheless permitted to take an action under chapter 75 if they can meet the
      higher burden of proof). Agencies may even take an action under chapter 75
      based on ad hoc goals, meaning those that were not established and identified in
                                                                                          11

      advance for the employee, but rather were required when the agency took the
      action. Graham, 46 M.S.P.R. at 235. Under chapter 75, the agency must prove
      only that its performance standard was reasonable and provided for accurate
      measurement    of     the   appellant’s   performance,   and   that   the   appellant’s
      performance was unacceptable according to that measurement. Id. at 235-36. We
      find that this standard is consistent with the VA Accountability Act’s requirement
      that an employee’s performance “warrant[]” the Secretary’s chosen disciplinary
      action. 38 U.S.C. § 714(a)(1). Thus, we find that the chapter 75 standard is
      appropriately applied to performance-based actions under the Act.
¶19        In the absence of any clear indication in the VA Accountability Act or its
      legislative history addressing the appropriate standard for performance -based
      actions, we conclude that the chapter 75 standard should apply. We acknowledge
      that the Act was intended to make it easier to discipline employees under its
      provisions than under chapter 75.         See Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1376-77 (citation
      omitted). However, we find that the application of the lower substantial evidence
      standard and the Board’s inability to mitigate the penalty in appeals under the Act
      achieves the statutory intent without requiring the creation of an entirely separate
      substantive standard. Because the administrative judge required the agency to
      prove the validity of its publication standard as required in an action under
      chapter 43, i.e., that its standard was reasonable, realistic, and attainable, we
      remand the appeal for further consideration under the appropriate standard. ID
      at 18; see Thomas, 95 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶ 12. On remand, the agency must show by
      substantial evidence that its performance standard was reasonable, provided for
      accurate measurement of the appellant’s performance, and that the appellant’s
      performance was unacceptable according to that measurement.             See Graham,
      46 M.S.P.R. at 235.
¶20        In light of our decision to remand the appeal, we do not reach the
      appellant’s arguments on review regarding the agency’s proof of its charge.
      These arguments include that the publication goal was unreasonable and
                                                                                       12

      unattainable and that he effectively met the goal.    E.g., PFR File, Tab 1 at 9,
      12-13, 21-22. To the extent the administrative judge has already consid ered and
      resolved these arguments, he may incorporate his prior determinations into his
      remand initial decision after considering and addressing any new argument and
      evidence presented by the parties on remand. ID at 11- 12, 17-18 & n.3, 22.

      We further remand the appeal for the administrative judge to provide the parties
      with an opportunity to present evidence and argument regarding whether the
      agency’s error in reviewing the proposed removal for substantial evidence was
      harmful.
¶21        The deciding official sustained the appellant’s removal based on her
      conclusion that substantial evidence supported the charge of failure in a critical
      performance element. IAF, Tab 9 at 11. After the initial decision in this case
      was issued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit)
      decided Rodriguez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1290, 1296-1301
      (Fed. Cir. 2021), in which it determined that the agency erred by applying a
      substantial evidence burden of proof to its internal review of a disciplinary action
      under 38 U.S.C. § 714. The court found that substantial evidence is the standard
      of review to be applied by the Board, not the agency. Id. at 1298-1300. One of
      the bases for the court’s conclusion was that because 38 U.S.C. § 714 requires
      that an agency’s deciding official “determine” whether “the performance or
      misconduct . . . warrants” the action at issue, the deciding official must use a
      preponderance of the evidence burden of proof. Id. at 1298-1301.
¶22        The Federal Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez applies to all pending cases,
      regardless of when the events at issue took place.      See Lee v. Department of
      Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 11, ¶ 16 (recognizing that a new precedential
      Federal Circuit decision applied to all cases pending with the Board) .         The
      administrative judge and the parties did not have the benefit of Rodriguez, and
      therefore were unable to address its impact on this appeal . We therefore remand
                                                                                            13

      this case for adjudication of whether the agency’s application of the substantial
      evidence standard of proof was harmful error. 5
¶23         Although 38 U.S.C. § 714 does not contain any language regarding the
      adjudication of a claim of harmful agency error, pursuant to 38 U.S.C.
      § 714(c)(4)(A), (d)(1), an administrative judge adjudicates an action taken under
      the VA Accountability Act under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(1).             An agency’s action
      “may not be sustained under [§ 7701(b)]” if the agency committed harmful error,
      based its decision on a prohibited personnel practice under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b), or
      “the decision was not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2). Thus, we
      find it appropriate to apply to actions taken under 38 U.S.C. § 714 the harmful
      error standard from 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2). A harmful error is an error by the
      agency in the application of its procedures that is likely to have caused the agency
      to reach a different conclusion from the one it would have reached in the absence
      or cure of the error. Ronso v. Department of the Navy, 122 M.S.P.R. 391, ¶ 14
      (2015); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(r).      The appellant bears the burden of proving his
      affirmative defenses by preponderant evidence. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(C).

      5
        In Rodriguez, as here, the deciding official appeared to have applied the substantial
      evidence standard in sustaining the charges. Rodriguez, 8 F.4th at 1297. In remanding
      the case to the Board, the Federal Circuit stated that further proceedings would
      “[p]resumably . . . include requiring the [agency’s] deciding official to determine
      whether the evidence as to each of the charges . . . satisfied the preponderance of the
      evidence standard of proof.” Id. at 1301. We have considered whether it would be
      more appropriate to remand this matter to the agency for the deciding official to make
      this determination before the Board reviews the action. The Board has remanded some
      procedural error claims directly to agencies, but we find that the exceptional
      circumstances requiring such remands are not present here. For example, the Board has
      remanded a removal to an agency when it was based on the appellant’s fa ilure to
      maintain eligibility to obtain access to classified information, but the agency did not
      follow its own procedures in terminating that eligibility. Doe v. Department of Justice,
      118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶¶ 2-4, 20, 29-33 (2012). Remand to the agency was necessary
      under those circumstances because eligibility for access to classified information is a
      matter within the agency’s sole discretion. Id., ¶¶ 28-29, 32-33. Here, there is nothing
      similarly within the agency’s sole discretion concerning the level of review the deciding
      official afforded in this matter.
                                                                                      14

¶24         On remand, the administrative judge should provide the parties with an
      opportunity to present evidence and argument, including a supplemental hearing,
      addressing whether the agency’s use of the substantial evidence standard in the
      removal decision constituted harmful error. See 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1), (b)(1).
      The administrative judge should then address this affirmative defense in his
      remand initial decision.
¶25         Regardless of whether the appellant proves harmful error in the agency’s
      application of the substantial evidence burden of proof in the removal decision, if
      any argument or evidence on remand affects the administrative judge’s analysis
      of the appellant’s affirmative defenses or the agency’s penalty, he should address
      such argument or evidence in the remand initial decision . See Spithaler v. Office
      of Personnel Management, 1 M.S.P.R. 587, 589 (1980) (explaining that 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 administrative judge should consider as claims of harmful error the
      appellant’s arguments regarding the validity of his performance standards and
      rating, as well as the authority of the proposing official.
¶26         On review, the appellant reiterates his argument that his FY 2018
      performance standards and rating are invalid because the agency failed to comply
      with the performance appraisal procedures set forth in the agency’s Handbook
      5013, Performance Management Systems. PFR File, Tab 1 at 22-25; IAF, Tab 30
      at 12-16. He also argues on review, as he did below, that the agency violated
      other provisions of Handbook 5013, chapter 43, and the VA Accountability Act
      by, for example, failing to encourage his participation in the development of his
      standards or to obtain concurrence from an approval official for his Unacceptable
                                                                                          15

      FY 2018 rating. 6 PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, 21, 25-26; IAF, Tab 30 at 11-12, 14-15,
      26-27.   He further reasserts his claim that his removal may not be sustained
      because the GRECC Director lacked the authority to propose his removal. PFR
      File, Tab 1 at 15-18; IAF, Tab 30 at 7-8, 77-82.
¶27         To the extent that the administrative judge analyzed these allegations, he
      analyzed them as challenges to the validity of the appellant’s FY 2018
      performance standards. ID at 18-19. Although not entirely clear, he appears to
      have considered the validity of the appellant’s standards as part of the agency’s
      burden to prove the charge. Id. We find that these claims are more properly
      analyzed as allegations of harmful error, rather than as part of the agency’s case.
      On remand, the administrative judge should address the appellant’s various
      claims of procedural error under the harmful error standard.

      The administrative judge should address the appellant’s affirmative defense that
      the agency violated certain merit system principles.
¶28         On review, the appellant reiterates his argument from below that because
      the publication standard was “arbitrary,” the agency violated the merit system
      principle at 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(6), which provides that “[e]mployees should be
      retained based on the adequacy of their performance.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 21-22;
      IAF, Tab 30 at 29. Likewise, he restates his argument that the standard violated
      the merit system principle at 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(8)(A), which provides, in part,

      6
        The appellant argues on review that, during the hearing below, the administrative
      judge improperly admitted into evidence copies of the following two documents:
      (1) the appellant’s FY 2018 performance appraisal, which was signed by the approval
      official on November 19, 2018, IAF, Tab 20 at 565, and (2) the June 23, 2017 proposed
      reprimand, id. at 79-80. PFR File, Tab 1 at 25-27. An administrative judge has broad
      discretion to control the proceedings before him and his rulings regarding the
      admissibility of evidence are subject to review by the Board under an abuse of
      discretion standard. Lopes v. Department of the Navy, 119 M.S.P.R. 106, ¶ 11 (2012).
      The appellant has not shown that the administrative judge exceeded his broad authority
      here. Therefore, we decline to overturn the administrative judge’s evidentiary rulings.
                                                                                           16

      that “[e]mployees should be protected against arbitrary action.” PFR File, Tab 1
      at 21-22; IAF, Tab 30 at 29.
¶29         As set forth above, an agency’s action may not be sustained if it was based
      on any personnel practice prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b), which includes
      “violat[ing] any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly concerning, the
      merit system principles contained in [5 U.S.C. § 2301].”                     5 U.S.C.
      §§ 2302(b)(12), 7701(c)(2)(B). These principles include the two identified by the
      appellant regarding employee retention and arbitrary action s. The administrative
      judge did not directly address the appellant’s claims regarding the agency’s
      violation of these merit system principles. 7 Therefore, on remand, he must do so.
      See Lovshin, 767 F.2d at 841-42 (recognizing that an alleged violation of the
      merit system principles is a defense to an action under chapter 75); Jenkins v.
      Environmental Protection Agency, 118 M.S.P.R. 161, ¶ 19 (2012) (finding that an
      appellant was entitled to a full opportunity to present evidence on remand
      regarding her claims that the agency violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(12)).              The
      administrative judge should allow the parties to present additional evidence and
      argument on these claims, if appropriate.

      On remand, the administrative judge should reassess the appellant’s claim of
      national origin discrimination consistent with Pridgen.
¶30         An appellant who raises an affirmative defense of disparate treatment under
      Title VII, including an affirmative defense of national origin discrimination, bears
      the burden of proving by preponderant evidence that the prohibited consideration
      was a motivating factor in the agency’s action or decision. Pridgen, 2022 MSPB

      7
        The merit system principles are not self-executing. Unless a law, rule, or regulation
      implementing or directly concerning the principles is violated, the principles
      themselves may not be made the basis of an affirmative defense. Pollard v. Office of
      Personnel Management, 52 M.S.P.R. 566, 569-70 (1992). The appellant in this case has
      tied his affirmative defense to specific statutory provisions that he argues execute the
      merit system principles. IAF, Tab 21 at 79-85.
                                                                                           17

      31, ¶¶ 20-21. However, for the appellant to obtain full relief under the statute, he
      must prove that the prohibited consideration was a but-for cause of the action or
      decision.   Id., ¶ 22.   An appellant may prove a claim of discrimination under
      Title VII by any combination of direct or indirect evidence, including evidence of
      the agency’s treatment of similarly situated comparators outside his protected
      class. Id., ¶ 24.
¶31         The appellant challenges the administrative judge’s finding that he failed to
      prove his affirmative defense of disparate treatment based on his national origin.
      PFR File, Tab 1 at 13-15; ID at 20-23. Specifically, the appellant argues that the
      administrative judge improperly included FY 2017 performance in his comparator
      analysis. PFR File, Tab 1 at 13-14. However, even if the administrative judge
      erred in doing so, the comparators’ FY 2017 performance was merely an
      alternative basis for the administrative judge’s finding that they were not
      similarly situated to the appellant. ID at 22 n.4. For the other reasons that the
      administrative judge explained, we agree with him that these individuals were not
      similarly situated to the appellant for purposes of Title VII. ID at 22; see Hooper
      v. Department of the Interior, 120 M.S.P.R. 658, ¶ 6 (2014) (holding that
      employees are similarly situated for purposes of Title VII when the material
      aspects of their employment situation are the same, including their position, job
      duties, and supervisory chain).      The appellant also argues that one specific
      comparator was similarly situated to him because this comparator also failed to
      produce at least three peer-reviewed papers in FY 2017.            PFR File, Tab 1
      at 14-15.    However, unlike the appellant, this comparator improved his
      performance and produced the requisite number of peer-reviewed papers in
      FY 2018. IAF, Tab 20 at 498-505. We therefore agree with the administrative
      judge that this individual was not similarly situated to the appella nt. ID at 22.
¶32         Although the appellant has not identified any reversible error in the
      administrative judge’s analysis, we find that further adjudication of the
      discrimination issue is warranted.         Specifically, the administrative judge
                                                                                      18

      adjudicated the appellant’s defense under Savage v. Department of the Army,
      122 M.S.P.R. 612 (2015), but during the pendency of the petition for review, the
      Board overruled the holding in Savage that the analytical framework identified in
      McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973), is inapplicable
      to Board proceedings.       Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 25.         On remand, the
      administrative judge shall reassess the appellant’s affirmative defense of national
      origin discrimination in accordance with Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 21-24. The
      administrative judge should afford the parties an additional opportunity to submit
      relevant evidence and argument on this issue, but he may incorporate his previous
      findings of fact to the extent appropriate.

      On remand, the administrative judge should address the appellant’s due process
      claim raised for the first time on review.
¶33         The appellant also raises a due process claim on review, alleging for the
      first time that the deciding official improperly considered evidence pertaining to
      his FY 2017 performance deficiencies in deciding to remove him.          PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 13-14, 27. He reasons that neither the notice of proposed removal nor
      the evidence file that the proposing official provided to the deciding official
      included evidence about the appellant’s 2017 performance deficiencies. Id.
¶34         Generally, the Board will not consider an argument rais ed for the first time
      on petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material
      evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence.       Clay v.
      Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016). The appellant has not
      made such a showing.      However, because we are remanding the appeal to the
      administrative judge to reopen the record on other grounds, we exercise our
      discretion to instruct the administrative judge to permit the parties to present
      evidence and argument on this issue on remand. See Powers v. Department of the
      Treasury, 86 M.S.P.R. 256, ¶ 10 n.3 (2000) (rejecting an agency’s argument that
      an administrative judge lacked the authority to sua sponte raise the issue of a
      violation of procedural due process) (citing Robinson v. Department of Veterans
                                                                                      19

      Affairs, 72 M.S.P.R. 444, 449 n.3 (1996) (recognizing that both administrative
      judges and the Board have, sua sponte, refused to turn a blind eye to clear e rror
      that affected an appellant’s rights)); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(e) (reserving to the
      Board the authority to consider any issue in an appeal before it).             The
      administrative judge should address the appellant’s due process claim in his
      remand initial decision.

      In analyzing the appellant’s whistleblower reprisal claim on remand, the
      administrative judge should address the appellant’s additional disclosures and
      activities.
¶35        In a chapter 43 or chapter 75 appeal, the Board adjudicates an appellant’s
      claim of whistleblower reprisal as an affirmative defense. Pridgen, 2022 MSPB
      31, ¶ 49; Campbell v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 674, ¶ 11 (2016). In
      such instances, once the agency proves its adverse action case, the appellant must
      prove by preponderant evidence that he made a protected disclosure or engaged in
      protected activity and that the disclosure or activity was a contributing factor in
      the personnel action at issue.     Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 49; Campbell,
      123 M.S.P.R. 674, ¶ 11.    If the appellant meets this burden, the agency must
      prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action
      absent the protected disclosure or activity.    Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 49;
      Campbell, 123 M.S.P.R. 674, ¶ 12. In determining whether the agency has met
      this burden, the Board will consider all the relevant factors, including the
      following:   (1) the strength of the agency’s evidence in support of its action;
      (2) the existence and strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of the agency
      officials involved in the decision; and (3) an y evidence that the agency takes
      similar actions against employees who did not engage in such protected activity,
      but who are otherwise similarly situated. Carr v. Social Security Administration,
      185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
¶36        We find that this analytical framework is appropriate for adjudicating a
      claim of whistleblower reprisal raised in an appeal of an action taken pursuant to
                                                                                       20

      the VA Accountability Act. We have previously observed that, under the Act,
      Congress generally intended to retain existing protections for agency employees.
      Wilson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 7, ¶ 22 (citations omitted);
      see Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1377 (concluding that Congress “intend[ed] to maintain”
      employees’ due process rights in connection with actions taken under 38 U.S.C.
      § 714 (citations omitted)). More specifically, Congress intended to preserve, and
      in fact expand, the preexisting protections for whistleblowers. E.g., 163 Cong.
      Rec. H4867-07, H4868 (daily ed. June 13, 2017) (statement of Rep. Buck that the
      VA Accountability Act “bolsters protection for whistleblowers” by creating a new
      office within the agency to protect them and by holding supervisors accountable
      for how well they protect whistleblowers); 163 Cong. Rec. H4863-02, H4864
      (daily ed. June 13, 2017) (statement of Rep. Roby that the VA Accountability Act
      “also increases protections for whistleblowers who put themselves at risk to
      improve the lives and care for veterans”); 163 Cong. Rec. S3261-01, S3276 (daily
      ed. June 6, 2017) (statement of Sen. Nelson that the VA Accountability Act
      would “create new protections for whistleblowers”).           Title I of the VA
      Accountability Act establishes an Office of Accountability and Whistleblower
      Protection within the agency. Pub. L. No. 115-41, §§ 101-103, 131 Stat. 862,
      863-68 (codified at 38 U.S.C. § 323). The presidentially appointed head of this
      office reports directly to the Secretary of the agency. 38 U.S.C. § 323(b). The
      office is charged with various duties related to the protection of whistleblowers,
      such as recommending discipline for alleged retaliators, and is required to report
      to Congress annually. 38 U.S.C. §323(c), (f).
¶37        Further, when an employee files a whistleblower reprisal complaint with the
      Office of Special Counsel or the agency’s Office of Accountability and
      Whistleblower Protection, the agency’s action against that employee generally is
      forestalled until the investigation is complete.   5 U.S.C. § 1214(f); 38 U.S.C.
      § 714(e)(2).   In light of Title I of the VA Accountability Act, the enhanced
      protection for whistleblowers set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 714(e), and the stated intent
                                                                                      21

      of Congress to continue protections for whistleblowers, we find it appropriate to
      adjudicate whistleblower reprisal claims under the VA Accountability Act in the
      same manner as we have adjudicated them when raised in an appeal of an action
      taken under chapter 43 and chapter 75.
¶38        The administrative judge found that the appellant proved that he made a
      protected disclosure to the deciding official in responding to his proposed
      removal. ID at 23-24. Specifically, the administrative judge found protected the
      appellant’s disclosure that the proposing official altered the appellant’s FY 2018
      performance standards after digitally signing them. Id.; IAF, Tab 22 at 104. The
      administrative judge also found that the appellant proved this disclosure was a
      contributing factor in the deciding official’s determination to remove the
      appellant approximately 2 weeks later.      ID at 16, 24-25; see Mastrullo v.
      Department of Labor, 123 M.S.P.R. 110, ¶¶ 18-21 (2015) (explaining that an
      employee may demonstrate that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor
      in a personnel action through circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that the
      official taking the personnel action knew of the disclosure, and that the personnel
      action occurred within 1 to 2 years of the disclosure). Neither party challenges
      these findings on review and we decline to disturb them.
¶39        The appellant, who has been pro se throughout the proceedings in this
      appeal, alleged below that he made a number of additional disclosures to the
      deciding official regarding improprieties in the issuance of his FY 2017 and 2018
      performance standards and appraisals. IAF, Tab 21 at 12-22, Tab 22 at 101-04,
      Tab 30 at 63, 73-75. He also alleged that he contacted the agency’s OIG about
      these improprieties.    IAF, Tab 22 at 102; Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 62
      (recognizing that the activity of contacting an agency’s OIG generally is
      protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(C) regardless of the content of what an
      appellant discloses to the OIG).     In his prehearing conference summary, the
      administrative judge acknowledged the appellant’s whistleblower reprisal claim
      generally but did not identify the specific alleged protected disclosures and
                                                                                         22

      activities at issue. IAF, Tab 26 at 4-6. In the initial decision, the administrative
      judge addressed only the disclosure discussed above. Although the appellant does
      not reassert his additional disclosures and activities on review, in light of the fact
      that we are remanding the appeal on other grounds , the administrative judge
      should address them in his remand initial decision.
¶40         As to the disclosure that he adjudicated, after analyzing the Carr factors,
      the administrative judge found that the agency proved by clear and convincing
      evidence that it would have removed the appellant absent this disclosure.          ID
      at 25-27. As for the first Carr factor, the administrative judge found that the
      evidence supporting the appellant’s removal was “extremely compelling” because
      the agency proved that the appellant failed to meet a critical element of his
      performance standards 2 years in a row. ID at 26. Turning to the second Carr
      factor, the administrative judge found that the deciding official did not have a
      motive to retaliate against the appellant for his disclosure beca use she had been
      the Bedford VA Director for a short period of time when she issued the removal
      letter; thus, she would have had no motive to cover up alleged misconduct by
      subordinate supervisors based on a belief that it might cast her managerial skills
      in a negative light. ID at 26-27. As for the third Carr factor, the administrative
      judge found that this factor weighed in favor of the agency because there was no
      proof that the agency retained underperforming research health scientists who
      were not whistleblowers. Id.
¶41         Because the administrative judge will be revisiting the charge on remand ,
      he also must consider on remand any additional evidence and argument
      concerning the charge when evaluating the first Carr factor. As to the second
      Carr factor, in Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
      2012), the Federal Circuit cautioned the Board against taking an “unduly
      dismissive and restrictive view” of retaliatory motive, holding that, “[t]hose
      responsible for the agency’s performance overall may well be motivated to
      retaliate even if they are not directly implicated by the disclosures, and even if
                                                                                         23

      they do not know the whistleblower personally, as the criticism reflects on them
      in their capacities as managers and employees.” Thus, in evaluating the second
      Carr factor on remand, the administrative judge should consider that the
      appellant’s disclosures may have reflected poorly on the Bedford VA Director as
      a representative of the agency’s general institutional interest in the validity of its
      performance management, which may be sufficient to establish a significant
      retaliatory motive. See Chambers v. Department of the Interior, 116 M.S.P.R. 17,
      ¶¶ 3, 69, 71 (2011) (finding that the managers who proposed and decided to
      remove an appellant had a motive to retaliate because the appellant’s disclosures
      reflected on them as representatives of the general institutional interests of the
      agency).
¶42         As for the third Carr factor, the administrative judge found that this factor
      weighed in favor of the agency because there was no proof that the agency
      retained underperforming research health scientists who were not whistleblowers.
      ID at 27. However, in Whitmore, the court held that “the absence of any evidence
      relating to Carr factor three can effectively remove that factor from the analysis,”
      but that the failure to produce evidence “may be at the agency’s peril” and may
      cause the agency to fail to meet its clear and convincing burden.          Whitmore,
      680 F.3d at 1374. Further, because it is the agency’s burden of proof, when the
      agency fails to introduce relevant comparator evidence, the third Carr factor
      cannot weigh in favor of the agency. Soto v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
      2022 MSPB 6, ¶ 18 (citing Smith v. General Services Administration, 930 F.3d
      1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Siler v. Environmental Protection Agency, 908 F.3d
      1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
¶43         In summary, on remand, the administrative judge should reconsider the
      appellant’s whistleblower reprisal claim.     In doing so, he should consider the
      appellant’s additional alleged protected disclosures and activities.              The
                                                                                             24

      administrative judge should also conduct a new analysis of the Carr factors
      consistent with this Opinion and Order. 8

      On remand, the administrative judge should review the agency’s penalty selection
      by considering the Douglas factors. 9
¶44         The administrative judge found that because the agency proved the charge
      by substantial evidence, the removal penalty must be affirmed.             ID at 27-28.
      Therefore, he found it was unnecessary to review the agency’s penalty
      determination or address the Douglas factors. ID at 28. At the time of the initial
      decision, the administrative judge did not have the benefit of the Federal Circuit’s
      decisions in Sayers, Brenner, and Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
      8 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
¶45         Under the VA Accountability Act, “if the decision of the Secretary is
      supported by substantial evidence, the . . . Board [and its administrative judges]

      8
        The appellant also argues on review that the administ rative judge failed to address
      several of his affirmative defenses; however, he does not provide any specifics
      regarding those claims. PFR File, Tab 1 at 28-29. Instead, he refers to those
      affirmative defenses by category (e.g., harmful error, prohibited personnel practices)
      and cites the sections of the pleading he filed below in which he raised these claims.
      Id. (citing IAF, Tab 30 at 10-112). The appellant is essentially attempting to
      incorporate by reference his submission below into his petition fo r review. However,
      the Board has held attempts to incorporate by reference pleadings that were filed below
      do not satisfy the requirement of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115 that the petitioning party set forth
      specific objections to the initial decision. Cole v. Department of Transportation,
      18 M.S.P.R. 102, 104 n.3 (1983). Therefore, we have not considered any of the
      appellant’s arguments not specifically raised in his petition for review. As a result, we
      also decline to consider the appellant’s claim that, because the administrative judge did
      not address each of his affirmative defenses, the decision is not “final and complete,” as
      required by 38 U.S.C. § 714(d)(1).
      9
        When a chapter 75 adverse action is challenged before the Board, the agency must
      prove a nexus between the alleged misconduct and the efficiency of the service. Pope
      v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 F.3d 1144, 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (relying, in part, on
      5 U.S.C. 7513(a) (restricting agencies to taking actions “only for such cause as will
      promote the efficiency of the service”)). The administrative judge did not make a
      determination as to whether this requirement applies to an action taken under 38 U.S.C.
      § 714 or, if so, whether the agency met its burden. Because the parties have not raised
      this issue on review, we decline to address it here. See Cole, 18 M.S.P.R. at 104 n.3.
                                                                                    25

      shall not mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary” in an action taken
      under 38 U.S.C. § 714.        38 U.S.C. §§ 714(d)(2)(B), (d)(3)(C).   The Federal
      Circuit in Sayers clarified that, while the Board may not “mitigate the penalty,”
      nevertheless, “§ 714 requires the Board to review for substantial evidence the
      entirety of the [agency’s] removal decision—including the penalty—rather than
      merely confirming that the record contains substantial evidence that the alleged
      conduct leading to the adverse action actually occurred. ” 954 F.3d at 1379. In
      Brenner, 990 F.3d at 1323-27, the court further held that the Board’s review must
      include the agency’s penalty determination whether the action is based on
      misconduct or performance.
¶46        Other than the requirement that the decision of the Secretary be supported
      by substantial evidence, the VA Accountability Act does not provide guidance for
      reviewing the agency’s penalty. Therefore, as with our analysis of the charge, we
      start by examining the standard of penalty review used by the Board in other
      performance-based actions. The Board does not review the agency’s penalty in
      chapter 43 actions, Lisiecki v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 769 F.2d 1558,
      1565 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and the Federal Circuit has rejected applying chapter 43’s
      lack of penalty review to actions taken under 38 U.S.C. § 714, Brenner, 990 F.3d
      at 1326-27; Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1378-79. Therefore, chapter 43 cannot provide
      any guidance on this issue.
¶47        The Board recognized in Douglas that it inherited from its predecessor, the
      Civil Service Commission, the authority to review the appropriateness of agency
      penalties. Douglas, 280 M.S.P.R. at 298-99. This review included consideration
      of a nonexhaustive list of factors, both aggravating and mitigating, that are
      relevant to determining the propriety of a penalty.     Id. at 303-06.   Congress
      presumably was aware of this history of Board penalty review, including the
      application of the Douglas factors, when it enacted the VA Accountability Act.
      See Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1375.
                                                                                      26

¶48       Although the VA Accountability Act prohibits the Board from mitigating the
      agency’s penalty, we find that the Board’s framework for chapter 75 penalty
      analysis is otherwise consistent with the Act.    The Board’s penalty review is
      essentially to assure that the agency conscientiously considered the relevant
      factors and struck a responsible balance of the factors within tolerable limits of
      reasonableness. Douglas, 5 M.S.P.R. at 306. If the Board sustains an agency’s
      charge in a chapter 75 action, it will affirm the agency-imposed penalty under
      Douglas unless it finds that the agency failed to weigh the relevant factors or the
      penalty imposed clearly exceeded the bounds of reaso nableness. Wiley v. U.S.
      Postal Service, 102 M.S.P.R. 535, ¶ 14 (2006), aff’d per curiam, 218 F. App’x
      1001 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
¶49        Our determination is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in
      Connor. In that case, the Federal Circuit determined that the Board must consider
      and apply the Douglas factors when reviewing penalties under the VA
      Accountability Act. Connor, 8 F.4th at 1325-26. The court held that, although
      the VA Accountability Act precludes the Board from mitigating the agency’s
      chosen penalty, “[i]t does not alter the penalty review with respect to the Douglas
      factors.” Id. at 1326. Because the Board cannot mitigate the penalty, “if the
      Board determines that the [agency] failed to consider the Douglas factors or that
      the chosen penalty is unreasonable, the Board must remand to the [agency] for a
      redetermination of the penalty.” Id. at 1326-27 (citing Brenner, 990 F.3d at 1325
      (determining that “if the [Board] concludes that the [agency’s] removal decision
      is unsupported by substantial evidence, the [Board] should remand to the [agency]
      for further proceedings”)).
¶50        The deciding official referenced some of the Douglas factors in making her
      removal decision. IAF, Tab 9 at 11, 76-77. The appellant suggested, below, that
      she did review all of the relevant factors and disagreed with the weight she gave
      to the factors she expressly considered in the removal decision. IAF, Tab 30
      at 101-103. Because he did not have the benefit of the Federal Circuit’s recent
                                                                                        27

      decisions regarding the Board’s obligation to review the penalty in an action
      taken under the VA Accountability Act, the administrative judge did not identify
      the penalty as an issue to be adjudicated below or provide guidance to the parties
      on the penalty issue.   IAF, Tab 26 at 3-8.    On remand, he should permit the
      parties to submit additional evidence and argument on the penalty issue.          In
      reviewing the penalty, the administrative judge should determine whether the
      agency proved by substantial evidence that it properly applied the relevant
      Douglas factors and whether the agency’s penalty was reasonable and, if not,
      remand the appellant’s removal to the agency for a new removal decision. See
      Connor, 8 F.4th at 1326-27; Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1375-76, 1379 (identifying the
      Board’s scope of review of the penalty in an action taken under the VA
      Accountability Act as substantial evidence); see Wiley, 102 M.S.P.R. 535, ¶ 14.

                                           ORDER
¶51        We vacate the initial decision and remand the appeal to the regional office
      for further adjudication consistent with this Opinion and Order.

      FOR THE BOARD:

      /s/
      Jennifer Everling
      Acting Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.