Court Opinion

ID: 9964292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 17:00:46.493839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:17.402682
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

KIP BRAILEY,                                    DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                  DC-0752-19-0391-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: April 26, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      William A. Lichtenfels , Esquire, Guilford, Connecticut, for the appellant.

      Joseph Capone , Cynthia Clark , and Phillip John Dickerson , Esquire,
        Vienna, Virginia, for the agency.

      Adrienne F. Boone , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed the agency’s indefinite suspension action based on his failure to
maintain eligibility to access classified information and to maintain a security
clearance. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation
or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative
judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision
were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion,
and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material
evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due
diligence, was not available when the record closed.        Title 5 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).             After fully
considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,
which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
      For the reasons provided in the initial decision, we agree with the
administrative judge’s finding that the appellant received sufficient notice under
5 U.S.C. § 7513(b) to be able to make a meaningful response to the underlying
suspension of his security clearance and access to classified information. Initial
Appeal File (IAF), Tab 33, Initial Decision (ID) at 11-13.        In particular, she
found that the agency informed the appellant that the suspension of his security
clearance and access to classified information was based on his alleged conduct in
the workplace that led to his removal from duty and placement on administrative
leave. Id. She further found that the nature of his alleged conduct was clear to
him based on his awareness of a detailed search warrant that was executed against
him at the workplace and a newspaper article discussing an ongoing investigation
related to his employment. Id.
      On petition for review, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s
finding that he received sufficient notice under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b) by raising the
following arguments: (1) the agency’s notices regarding the suspension of his
access to classified information and his indefinite suspension did not mention any
                                                                                        3

investigation, complaint, warrant, or newspaper articles; (2) the search warrant
did not contain any detailed information regarding his alleged conduct; and
(3) the administrative judge mischaracterized the nature of his attorney’s
comments in a newspaper article. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 6-7,
11-13. 2 In addition, he relies on Cheney v. Department of Justice, 479 F.3d 1343,
1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2007), in which our reviewing court found that the employee
was not provided with the opportunity to make a meaningful response to the
notice of proposed indefinite suspension when he had to guess at the reasons for
his security clearance suspension. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-10.
      After considering the appellant’s arguments and reviewing the record, we
discern no basis to disturb the administrative judge’s well-reasoned findings.
Specifically, the record reflects that the search warrant included an attachment
specifying the nature and time period of the appellant’s allegedly unlawful
conduct in the workplace. IAF, Tab 14 at 14-19. Further, the appellant has failed
to provide a reason to disturb the administrative judge’s finding that his
testimony that he did not recall receiving a search warrant or being made aware of
one lacks credibility. ID at 12; see Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R.
98, 106 (1997) (finding no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s credibility
findings when she considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate
inferences, and made reasoned conclusions). Moreover, the appellant does not
dispute that the agency provided his attorney with a copy of the search warrant
with the notice of proposed indefinite suspension and that his attorney referenced
the warrant in his written reply to the proposed action. ID at 6, 12; IAF, Tab 5
at 37, 39.   In addition, we find that any mischaracterization of his attorney’s
comments in the newspaper article is immaterial because it does not provide a
reason to disturb the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant was aware
of the ongoing investigation related to his employment after reading the article.
2
   With his petition for review, the appellant has included a copy of the hearing
transcript that already is a part of the record before the administrative judge. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 17-157; IAF, Hearing Transcript.
                                                                                   4

ID at 5, 13; IAF, Tab 14 at 49-53. Therefore, unlike in Cheney, we find that the
appellant here did not have to guess at the reasons for his security clearance
suspension.
      Further, the appellant generally asserts on review that the Board denied him
the ability to obtain information about the basis of his suspension through
discovery, citing Mason v. Department of the Navy, 70 M.S.P.R. 584 (1996).
PFR File, Tab 1 at 14. Unlike in Mason, 70 M.S.P.R. at 587-88, the agency here
provided specific information prior to the hearing regarding the appellant’s
alleged conduct that led to the suspension of his security clearance and access to
classified information.    IAF, Tab 14 at 10-55.          Although the appellant
subsequently filed a renewed motion to compel to depose two agency witnesses,
IAF, Tab 18 at 4-6, the administrative judge stated in the Order and Summary of
Prehearing Conference that the parties were able to resolve the motion to compel
and that they arrived at stipulations prior to the prehearing conference, IAF,
Tab 20 at 2.   Moreover, the appellant did not object to the contents of such
summary prior to the start of the hearing despite being informed that he could do
so.   Id. at 5; IAF, Hearing Transcript at 5-8.      Therefore, we find that the
appellant’s argument regarding discovery is unavailing.
      Finally, the appellant argues that the administrative judge failed to consider
his past work record.      PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6.        In Douglas v. Veterans
Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981), the Board recognized that an
employee’s past work record is one of 12 nonexhaustive factors that are relevant
for consideration in determining the appropriateness of an imposed penalty for
alleged misconduct. For the reasons provided in the initial decision, we agree
with the administrative judge’s finding that the Douglas factors do not apply to
this case.     ID at 14; see Munoz v. Department of Homeland Security,
121 M.S.P.R. 483, ¶¶ 15-16 (2014).          Thus, we discern no error in the
administrative judge’s failure to consider the appellant’s past work record.
      Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.
                                                                                      5

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file.            5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.             5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).

3
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        6

      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition    to   the   court   at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review    of   cases      involving   a   claim     of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.      5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
                                                                                  7

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security.        See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant   to   the   Whistleblower    Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
                                                                                      8

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or
2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial
review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 4 The court of appeals must receive your
petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                               U.S. Court of Appeals
                               for the Federal Circuit
                              717 Madison Place, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C. 20439

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

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             9

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.