Court Opinion

ID: 9909735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 22:00:37.86113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:19.344304
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GREGORY PRICE,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-0752-22-0192-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: December 12, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Justin Prato , Esquire, San Diego, California, for the appellant.

           Stephen Coutant , Esquire, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained his removal.      For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the
     appellant's petition for review and MITIGATE the penalty to a 5-day suspension.
¶2         On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in
     deferring to the deciding official’s penalty determination, which relied on a prior
     7-day suspension, imposed by a different employing agency, that has since been

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     removed from the appellant’s record pursuant to a settlement agreement in a
     separate proceeding. 2
¶3         We agree. The Board’s policy is to not consider prior discipline that has
     been overturned at the time of Board review. See Jones v. U.S. Postal Service,
     110 M.S.P.R. 674, ¶ 7 (2009) (citing U.S. Postal Service v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1,
     10 (2001) (citing Jones v. Department of the Air Force, 24 M.S.P.R. 429, 431
     (1984))); see also Norris v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 675 F.3d 1349,
     1355-57 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that, in assessing whether the penalty was
     reasonable, the Board must consider new, post -removal mitigation evidence that
     was not available to the agency).      For example, in Franklin v. Department of
     Justice, 71 M.S.P.R. 583 (1996), the agency had already removed the appellant
     when the Board issued a decision reversing his previous demotion and
     suspension.   Id. at 587 n.1.     The administrative judge in the removal appeal
     mitigated the penalty to a 30-day suspension, and on review, the Board found that
     the administrative judge had properly considered the appellant’s lack of prior
     discipline as a mitigating factor. Id. at 593. In Lopez v. Department of Justice,
     55 M.S.P.R. 644 (1992), the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     sustaining the appellant’s 30-day suspension, relying in part on the appellant’s
     prior disciplinary record, which at that time included a 14-day suspension. Five
     years later, the agency cancelled the 14-day suspension after an agency complaint
     officer determined that it was the result of “retaliation discrimination,” and the
     appellant promptly filed a petition for review. The Board found good cause for
     the untimely filing, granted the appellant’s petition, and reduced the 30-day
     suspension to 15 days based on the modified record. Id. at 646-47; see Rush v.
     Department of the Air Force, 69 M.S.P.R. 416 (1996) (following the initial
     decision sustaining the appellant’s removal, the agency complied with an

     2
       The appellant does not dispute the charge on review. We have considered the
     appellant’s contention that the agency denied him due process by allegedly relying on
     uncharged conduct, but we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant did not
     establish that defense.
                                                                                     3

arbitration decision cancelling a 2-week suspension it had relied on as an
aggravating factor; the Board found good cause for the untimely filing of the
appellant’s petition for review but concluded the removal penalty was still
reasonable absent consideration of the cancelled prior discipline); cf. Lindo v.
U.S. Postal Service, 909 F.2d 1494 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (nonprecedential) (remanding
for the Board to reassess the removal penalty in light of two arbitrator decisions,
issued during the pendency of the appeal, which reversed a prior 7-day
suspension and reduced a prior 14-day suspension to a 7-day suspension).
      Accordingly, we review the agency’s penalty determination based on the
modified record. 3 In this case, the agency has already indicated the maximum
penalty it would have imposed had it not considered the appellant’s disciplinary
record as an aggravating factor. At the hearing, the deciding official explicitly
testified that he would not have removed the appellant in the absence of his prior
discipline. Hearing Recording, May 12, 2022 (testimony of deciding official).
He explained that under the agency’s table of penalties, removal is within the
range of penalties for a second offense of Failure to Comply with Instructions,
whereas a first offense warrants at most a 5-day suspension.          Id.; see Initial
Appeal File, Tab 6 at 112, Tab 8 at 83-84.           Given the deciding official’s
testimony on this point, it is unnecessary to determine the maximum reasonable
penalty for the sustained misconduct.      Cf. Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246,
1260 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“When the Board sustains fewer than all of the agency’s
charges, the Board may mitigate to the maximum reasonable penalty so long as
the agency has not indicated either in its final decision or during proceedings
before the Board that it desires that a lesser penalty be imposed on fewer
charges.”). Rather, in deference to the deciding official’s construal of the charge
and his clearly expressed intent to abide by the agency’s table of penalties, we

3
  We do not reach the question of whether it would have otherwise been appropriate for
the deciding official to consider discipline imposed by a different employing agency.
                                                                                         4

     mitigate the penalty to a 5-day suspension, which we find to be within the bounds
     of reasonableness.
¶4         We ORDER the agency to replace the removal action with a 5-day
     suspension. 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.
¶5         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 Personnel
     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.
¶6         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).
¶7         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).
¶8         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
                                                                                      5

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.
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 4
      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 and
the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule
regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of

4
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        6

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).
      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
                                                                                    7

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
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
                                                                                      8

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
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. 5   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

5
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  9

review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.          5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
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:                        ______________________________
                                      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.