Court Opinion

ID: 9402577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 06:00:22.385315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.896771
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOSE E. ROSARIO-FABREGAS,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       NY-0752-18-0221-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: June 15, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jose E. Rosario-Fabregas, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pro se.

           Elizabeth Moseley, Jacksonville, Florida, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review and the agency has filed a cross
     petition for review of the initial decision, which sustained the appellant’s
     removal. For the reasons discussed below, we DENY the appellant’s petition for
     review and the agency’s cross petition for review.          We AFFIRM the initial
     decision, AS MODIFIED to find that the agency proved its insubordination

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 id entified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                     2

     charge and that the insubordination charge supports the appellant’s removal, and
     to expand upon the administrative judge’s determination that the appellant failed
     to prove any of his affirmative defenses.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant most recently held a GS-12 Biologist position in the agency’s
     U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, stationed in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, Tab 5 at 6. In February 2010, the agency removed him for
     misconduct, but the Board reversed on due process grounds in November 2011.
     Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 2 (2015),
     aff’d, 833 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2016).      The agency cancelled the appellant’s
     removal and restored him to the employment rolls.       Id.; Rosario-Fabregas v.
     Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-10-0127-C-1, Compliance
     File, Tab 6 at 7, 15.
¶3         Less than a month after the Board issued its decision reversing the
     appellant’s removal, he submitted a letter to the agency from his treating
     psychiatrist, asking that the agency excuse him from work un til January 2012.
     Rosario-Fabregas, 122 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 3; Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the
     Army, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-13-0167-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0167 IAF),
     Tab 11, Part 1 at 17 of 58. This return-to-work date was continually extended,
     first at the appellant’s behest, and then based on the agency’s demands for a
     medical   release.      Rosario-Fabregas,   122   M.S.P.R.   468,   ¶¶   3-5.   In
     November 2012, the appellant provided a more detailed medical assessment . Id.,
     ¶ 5. The following day, however, the agency proposed the appellant’s removal
     based on the same charges underlying the first removal action, and it placed him
     on paid administrative leave. 2 Id., ¶ 5. The agency effectuated his removal in
     February 2013. Id.

     2
      The appellant filed an appeal with the Board alleging that his absence between
     December 2011 and November 2012 was a constructive suspension. Rosario-Fabregas,
                                                                                        3

¶4         On appeal of his second removal action, the administrative judge sustained
     the agency’s conduct unbecoming, inappropriate use of official time, and
     inappropriate use of Government property charges, but not its insubordination
     charge. Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. NY-
     0752-13-0142-I-2, Final Order, ¶¶ 2-3 (July 1, 2016). The administrative judge
     mitigated the second removal action to a 30-day suspension, and the Board
     affirmed in July 2016. Id., ¶¶ 1, 48. Notably, the Board stated that mitigation of
     the penalty was warranted because, inter alia, the appellant had no prior discipline
     and the agency’s most serious charge—insubordination—was not sustained. Id.,
     ¶¶ 44, 48.
¶5         Although the administrative judge had ordered interim relief from the
     second removal action, the agency placed the appellant on paid administrative
     leave instead of returning him to the workplace pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
     § 7701(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II).   Rosario-Fabregas, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-13-
     0142-I-2, Petition for Review File, Tab 4 at 27-28.         But after receiving the
     Board’s final decision, the agency notified the appellant that his administrative
     leave would end, and he would be returned to duty. IAF, Tab 9 at 74 -75. The
     events that followed culminated with the agency’s third attempted removal of the
     appellant, which is the matter before us in the instant appeal.
¶6         The agency ordered the appellant to provide a medical release prior to his
     return-to-work date. Id. at 74. The parties subsequently agreed that the appellant
     would first serve his 30-day suspension and his return-to-work date would be
     September 6, 2016.     Id. at 51, 69.   A week before that scheduled return, the
     agency reminded the appellant that he needed to provide a medical release before
     returning to duty. Id. at 55. When his scheduled return-to-duty date arrived, the
     appellant began requesting sick and annual leave, which the agency granted
     throughout the month of September. Id. at 29-30, 33, 37.

     122 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶¶ 9-19. The Board dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
     Id., ¶¶ 1, 19.
                                                                                        4

¶7          On September 27, 2016, the appellant provided the agency a note from his
      treating psychiatrist.     However, instead of releasing the appellant to return to
      duty, the psychiatrist stated that the appellant should not return to work until
      December 1, 2016.        Id. at 40. Over the next several months, the psychiatrist
      continually pushed the appellant’s return-to-duty date back, ultimately to June 1,
      2017. Id. at 42, 44, 46. During this period, the agency approved the appellant’s
      requests for leave to cover this lengthy absence. Id. at 38, 41, 43, 45, 48.
¶8          On May 4, 2017, the appellant’s supervisor notified him that he was
      “expected to report to work” on June 1, 2017. IAF, Tab 7 at 129. She warned
      him that his absence from duty could not continue indefinitely and that he wo uld
      face removal if he did not become available for duty on a regular basis.         Id.
      at 129-30. In anticipation of the approaching June 1, 2017 return -to-duty date,
      she directed the appellant to provide a medical release no later than May 25,
      2017. Id. at 129. However, the appellant was having difficulty scheduling an
      evaluation, so his supervisor extended the release deadline to June 21, 2017, with
      a July 5, 2017 return-to-work date. Id. at 70-71.
¶9          The June 21, 2017 deadline passed without the appellant submitting a
      medical release, and around the same time, the appellant exhausted his accrued
      leave. Id. at 136-37. On June 22, 2017, the appellant requested advance sick or
      annual leave to cover his continued absence, but his supervisor denied the re quest
      because she had no reasonable assurance that the appellant would return to duty.
      Id. at 136, 138-40. Nevertheless, she approved the appellant’s continued absence
      in a leave without pay (LWOP) status, while warning that if he did not report for
      duty on July 5, 2017, with a medical release, he would be considered absent
      without leave (AWOL). Id. at 136-37. The appellant did not submit a release or
      report for duty by July 5, 2017, and the agency began carrying him in AWOL
      status. Id. at 136, 188.
¶10         On July 21, 2017, the appellant notified the agency that he had a July 31,
      2017 appointment with another psychiatrist.         Id. at 226-27.   The appellant’s
                                                                                           5

      supervisor granted him approved LWOP pending the results of the July 31, 2017
      evaluation, but she warned him that he must submit the psychiatrist’s opinion on
      his ability to work no later than August 1, 2017. Id. at 225. On July 27, 2017,
      this psychiatrist notified the appellant that he would not be handling his case. Id.
      at 230. The appellant did not submit the required documentation, and he was
      again placed in an AWOL status. IAF, Tab 8 at 8, 102, 105.
¶11        On August 22, 2017, the appellant’s supervisor proposed his removal based
      on charges of AWOL and excessive absence.          IAF, Tab 6 at 250 -58.      In the
      meantime, on June 15 and August 24, 2017, the appellant’s supervisor issued him
      instructions in response to what the agency perceived were harassing emails.
      IAF, Tab 5 at 103, Tab 6 at 8-9.         Specifically, she instructed him not to
      communicate directly with his prior supervisor and not to send “email blasts.”
      IAF, Tab 6 at 8-9. During the period for responding to his proposed removal, the
      appellant sent multiple emails that his supervisor considered to be in violation of
      these instructions. IAF, Tab 5 at 103-04, 120-39, Tab 6 at 9. As a result, his
      supervisor rescinded the pending proposal and issued a new one, dated
      October 11, 2017, which included an additional charge of insubordination. IAF,
      Tab 5 at 69-86. The proposal stated that any one of the charges would warrant
      the appellant’s removal. Id. at 75-84. After the appellant responded, the deciding
      official upheld all the charges and removed the appellant effective August 24,
      2018. Id. at 6-13.
¶12        The appellant filed a Board appeal, contesting the merits of this third
      removal action and raising affirmative defenses of whistleblower retaliation and
      discrimination based on disability and national origin. IAF, Tab 1 at 3 -5, Tab 10,
      Tab 15 at 2.     He waived his right to a hearing.       IAF, Tab 1 at 2.          The
      administrative judge developed the record and issued an initial decision affirming
      the appellant’s removal. IAF, Tab 37, Initial Decision (ID). She sustained the
      AWOL     and   excessive   absences   charges,   but   she   did   not   sustain   the
      insubordination charge. ID at 14-16. She also concluded that the appellant failed
                                                                                        6

      to prove his affirmative defenses.    ID at 17-19.    Finally, she found that the
      removal penalty was reasonable for the sustained charges. ID at 19.
¶13        The appellant has filed a petition for review, challenging numerous aspects
      of the initial decision. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has
      filed a response and cross petition for review, challenging the administrative
      judge’s findings about its insubordination charge.       PFR File, Tab 3.       The
      appellant has responded to the agency’s cross petition for review.       PFR File,
      Tab 5.

                                         ANALYSIS
      The administrative judge erred by not sustaining the charge of insubordination.
¶14        Again, the agency has challenged the administrative judge’s conclusion that
      its insubordination charge could not be sustained. PFR File, Tab 3 at 5, 11 -16.
      For the reasons that follow, we sustain the charge and modify the initial decision
      accordingly.
¶15        Insubordination is the willful and intentional refusal to obey an authorized
      order of a superior officer, which the officer is entitled to have obeyed. Walker v.
      Department of the Army, 102 M.S.P.R. 474, ¶ 8 (2006).           Here, the agency’s
      insubordination charge consisted of two specifications. IAF, Tab 5 at 8, 81 -84.
      The first stemmed from an instruction that the appellant cease all communication
      with his former supervisor at work. According to the agency, the appellant was
      insubordinate when he subsequently sent mass emails that included his former
      supervisor as a recipient on August 24 and September 1, 2017, and by sending a
      more individualized email to his former supervisor on September 1, 2017. Id.
      at 83. The second specification stemmed from an instruction that the appellant
      cease sending mass emails without prior approval. Id. at 83-84. According to the
      agency, the appellant was insubordinate because he sent the September 1, 2017
      mass email to thousands of employees. Id.
                                                                                             7

¶16         The appellant’s response to the proposed removal did not substantively
      address his supervisor’s orders or his alleged insubordination regarding the same.
      Id. at 57-68. Then, during adjudication of this appeal, the appellant disputed the
      charge without providing any substantive explanation, except to claim that he was
      exercising his right to free speech or engaging in protected whistleblowing. 3 E.g.,
      IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 11 at 16-17, Tab 36 at 10-11; PFR File, Tab 5 at 19-21. As
      such, it seems that the following facts, which are supported by the agency’s
      documentary submissions, are not materially disputed.
¶17         On June 15, 2017, a former supervisor of the appellant’s contacted the
      appellant’s current supervisor and an agency attorney, complaining that the
      appellant had been harassing him via email. IAF, Tab 5 at 147. This former
      supervisor asked for a plan of action to cease the harassment.            Id.   He also
      included the appellant’s most recent, rambling message. Id. Among other things,
      this message from the appellant to his former supervisor refer red to matters from
      many years earlier; described his former supervisor as not “us[ing] [his] brain”;
      claimed that the former supervisor had harassed the appellant all those years ago;
      and denied having harassed his former supervisor.            Id.   Later that day, the
      appellant’s current supervisor instructed the appellant to cease all contact with his
      former supervisor at work.      IAF, Tab 6 at 8.       His current supervisor further
      indicated that the appellant should send communications to her, as an
      intermediary, if he ever had an official need to communicate with his former
      supervisor in the future. Id. In a response also dated the same date, the appellant
      acknowledged the instruction, indicating that he would comply. Id. at 15.

      3
         Although the appellant generally referred to his emails as protected whistleblowing,
      he has not provided much of an explanation. He implicates only the first of his mass
      emails—the one that led to an order that he not send out any more mass emails without
      permission—in making this claim. PFR File, Tab 5 at 19 (referencing IAF, Tab 6 at 9).
      To the extent that the appellant is presenting a whistleblower reprisal claim, we address
      it below in our discussion of the appellant’s whistleblower reprisal affirmative defense.
                                                                                               8

¶18         On August 24, 2017, just days after his proposed removal for AWOL and
      excessive absences that would eventually be replaced with one that added an
      insubordination charge, the appellant sent an email from a personal account to a
      couple of agency distribution lists, which included his former supervisor and
      thousands of other employees. 4 IAF, Tab 5 at 103, Tab 6 at 9. This email is
      rambling and difficult to understand but asserts various improprieties on the part
      of the agency, at least some of which were related to his proposed removal. IAF,
      Tab 6 at 9. For example, the email describes unnamed officials responsible for
      his removal as a “clan of racists,” while summarily stating that the agency
      “discriminates against Hispanics” and had “hid[den] felonies.”                  Id.   The
      appellant’s current supervisor immediately responded to the appellant, directing
      him to not send “district wide, regulatory wide, or any other email blasts to
      [agency] employees without [her] approval.”           Id.   The appellant replied with
      another rambling email in which he claimed that his supervisor could not force
      him to keep silent, but she could facilitate a large financial lump sum settl ement,
      equivalent to 6 years of “[f]ront pay,” so that he could retire with 35 years of pay
      or service. Id. at 244-45.
¶19         On September 1, 2017, the appellant once again sent an email to agency
      distribution lists, which included his former supervisor and thou sands of other
      employees.     IAF, Tab 5 at 120, Tab 6 at 11-12.            This email was similarly
      rambling and indicated that the email included an attachment related to one of his
      prior appeals, for the purpose of showing how prior charges against him had been

      4
        The record includes another email from the appellant, on the same date, addressed to
      about a dozen individuals, including the appellant’s former supervisor. IAF, Tab 5
      at 146. The email contains an attachment but no body text. Id. This appears to be
      another instance of the appellant defying the order to cease communicating with his
      former supervisor. However, while the email is referenced in the general background
      portion of the proposal to remove the appellant, id. at 73, and the background portion
      specific to the insubordination charge, id. at 82, it is not specifically referenced within
      the accompanying specifications, id. at 83-84. Under the circumstances, we will not
      consider this additional email from the appellant to his former supervisor.
                                                                                            9

      “annihilate[ed].” 5 Id. That same day, the appellant also sent a separate email to
      his former supervisor and just one other employee, with the subject line
      indicating that he was attaching records, and body text that merely stated,
      “gREETINGS.” 6 IAF, Tab 5 at 117.
¶20         The administrative judge found that the insubordination charge failed
      because the agency’s orders to the appellant were improper.           ID at 16.     She
      reasoned, citing Smith v. General Services Administration, 930 F.3d 1359 (Fed.
      Cir. 2019), that the orders were overly broad because they did not merely direct
      the appellant to refrain from making false or offensive statements. ID at 16. We
      disagree.
¶21         An agency charging an employee with failure to follow instructions or
      insubordination generally must show that the instructions were “proper.”
      Hamilton v. U.S. Postal Service, 71 M.S.P.R. 547, 555-56 (1996). The court in
      Smith suggested that an agency’s instruction that an appellant not communicate
      with agency officials absent prior supervisory approval “may independently
      violate the Whistleblower Protection Act.” 930 F.3d at 1362-63, 1366 n.2. It
      reasoned that such an instruction was a personnel action under 5 U.S.C.
      § 2302(a)(2)(A)(xi).        Smith,     930     F.3d    at    1366     n.2.        Under
      section 2302(a)(2)(A)(xi), the definition of “personnel action” includes “t he
      implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement .”

      5
        It is not apparent whether the attachment—which the text of the email specifically
      referenced—was included in the record or even available to all recipients of the
      appellant’s email message, which he sent from a personal email account, given the
      agency’s systems for protecting against potentially harmful files. IAF, Tab 6 at 11 -12.
      But the surrounding circumstances do suggest that the appellant included an attachment
      in this email message. Id.
      6
        Again, it is not apparent whether the attachment was inclu ded in the record or even
      available to the recipients of the appellant’s email message, which he sent from a
      personal email account. IAF, Tab 5 at 117. But again, the surrounding circumstances
      do suggest that the appellant included an attachment in this email message. Id.
                                                                                        10

¶22        This case is distinguishable from Smith because the instruction at issue in
      Smith was motivated by the employee’s prior protected disclosures. 930 F.3d
      at 1361-63, 1366 n.2. In other words, the instruction at issue was a nondisclosure
      instruction. Unlike the employee in Smith, the appellant did not prove that he
      made a protected disclosure in connection with any of the emails that prompted,
      or followed, his supervisor’s June 15 and August 24, 2017 instructions regarding
      his communications. 7     Therefore, he has not established he is entitled to
      corrective action in connection with these instructions. See Alarid v. Department
      of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 600, ¶¶ 12-13 (2015).
¶23        However, it is also a prohibited personnel practice to implement or enforce
      “any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement” unless it contains specific
      language regarding, among other matters, an employee’s continued right to make
      protected disclosures and engage in protected activities, and does not prohibit
      disclosures made to certain entities. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(13). Therefore, we have
      considered whether the communication restrictions were improper because they
      constituted such a prohibited personnel practice. 8 We answer this question in the
      negative.
¶24        Unlike the circumstances in Smith, there is little reason to question the
      motivations for the instructions at issue, and the agency did not seek to prevent
      disclosures. Further, the instructions were not overly broad. In Smith, an agency
      instructed the employee not to have any communications with upper level
      managers without the approval of his first-level supervisor.       Smith, 930 F.3d
      at 1362. The instructions at issue here did not curtail the appellant’s ability to
      contact individuals within or outside his chain of command.             Further, the
      instructions were narrowly tailored to concerns raised by his prior emails.

      7
        The content of these emails are further analyzed below in connection with the
      appellant’s whistleblower reprisal affirmative defense.
      8
        We do not decide here whether an instruction is a policy, form, or agreement within
      the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(13).
                                                                                           11

¶25           To recall, the appellant was an employee of the agency, but he had not been
      in a duty status, performing work, for years.         Yet the appellant was sending
      accusatory messages to his former supervisor, which the former supervisor
      understandably found unwelcome. The appellant was also sending mass email
      messages to thousands of agency employees about his own personal disputes with
      the agency. Even if the messages could be read and disposed of in a brief amount
      of time, that time must be multiplied by the thousands of recipients to account for
      the burden it placed on agency operations. 9 We find the resulting instructions
      from the appellant’s current supervisor to cease direct communication with his
      former supervisor and cease sending mass emails were appropriate. See Lentine
      v. Department of the Treasury, 94 M.S.P.R. 676, ¶¶ 2, 5, 15 (2003) (sustaining a
      failure to follow a direct order charge and removal of an employee for emailing
      another employee after an explicit order to cease such contact). We disagree with
      the administrative judge’s finding to the contrary.
¶26           Having determined the facts surrounding the alleged insubordination and
      the propriety of the underlying orders to the appellant, we now turn to the final
      element of the agency’s burden—proof of intent. Parbs v. U.S. Postal Service,
      107 M.S.P.R. 559, ¶ 13 (2007), aff’d per curiam, 301 F. App’x 923 (Fed. Cir.
      2008).     Intent is a state of mind that is generally proven by circumstantial
      evidence in the context of an insubordination charge. Parbs, 107 M.S.P.R. 559,
      ¶ 13.    In considering whether the agency has proven intent, the Board must
      examine the totality of the circumstances. Id.

      9
         In response to emails the appellant sent on August 24 and September 1, 2017, an
      employee wrote to the appellant’s supervisor that they were “upsetting and offensive for
      [him],” because it alleged that the employee and his sister had been hired and promoted
      illegally, and accused coworkers and supervisors of “unethical behavior” and “wrongful
      acts against [the appellant].” IAF, Tab 5 at 106. A note from a different agency
      official contained in the record reflects that “several employees expressed concern
      regarding” emails he sent on August 24 and September 1, 2017, and that the official
      responded by sending an email message reminding employees “of the measures they can
      take to assist with security and safety in the workplace.” IAF, Tab 6 at 249.
                                                                                              12

¶27         Here, we find that the record supports a finding of intent for the agency’s
      first specification and its allegation about the September 1, 2017 email that the
      appellant sent to his former supervisor and one other agency official. IAF, Tab 5
      at 117. The agency’s order was clear, and the appellant acknowledged receipt of
      that order, yet he unambiguously defied the order just weeks later. IAF, Tab 5
      at 117, Tab 6 at 8, 15. The appellant has not substantively explained his actions
      in any way that would negate what appears to be his intentional defiance of the
      order to stop contacting his former supervisor.         See Parbs, 107 M.S.P.R. 559,
      ¶ 20 (sustaining an insubordination charge when the appellant did not offer
      significant contrary proof to rebut the agency’s circumstantial evidence) ;
      Redfearn v. Department of Labor, 58 M.S.P.R. 307, 312-13 (1993) (finding the
      intent element proven for an insubordination charge when the agency showed that
      an appellant was given instructions she did not follow and the appellant failed to
      offer any explanation such as impossibility or lack of knowledge).
¶28         For the other emails referenced in this specification, the August 24 and
      September 1, 2017 mass emails, it is plausible that the appellant did not realize
      the distribution lists he used included his former supervisor.           See IAF, Tab 5
      at 103, Tab 6 at 9, 11-12.       But that explanation is not one the appellant has
      presented.    As previously stated, he has offered virtually no defense to the
      insubordination charge, except to summarily claim that he was exercising his
      right to free speech. 10 Therefore, we also find it more likely true than untrue that

      10
        Below, the appellant only briefly alluded to his constitutional right to free speech,
      and he only did so in the context of extensive filings that were difficult to understand.
      IAF, Tab 11 at 16-17, Tab 36 at 11. Because the administrative judge did not explicitly
      address this issue, we will do so now.
      To determine whether employee speech is protected by the First Amendment, the Board
      must determine: (1) whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern and, if so,
      (2) whether the agency’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the service outweighs
      the employee’s interest as a citizen.         Smith v. Department of Transportation,
      106 M.S.P.R. 59, ¶ 46 (2007). To illustrate, the Board has explained that a discussion
      regarding racial relations or discrimination is a matter of p ublic concern entitled to the
      full protection of the First Amendment but an equal employment opportunity matter that
                                                                                             13

      the appellant intentionally defied the order not to contact his former supervisor
      when he sent the mass emails with the former supervisor as one of the recipients.
      See Parbs, 107 M.S.P.R. 559, ¶ 20; Redfearn, 58 M.S.P.R. at 312-13.
¶29           Lastly, we find that the record also supports a finding of intent for the
      agency’s second specification and its allegation about the mass email sent on
      September 1, 2017.        The corresponding order from just days before was
      unambiguous, the appellant responded by implying that he would not comply, and
      then he defied the order.      IAF, Tab 6 at 9, 11-12, 244-45.          Once more, the
      appellant has not substantively explained his actions in any way that would
      negate what appears to be his intentional defiance of a valid order to stop sending
      mass emails without prior approval.          See Parbs, 107 M.S.P.R. 559, ¶ 20;
      Redfearn, 58 M.S.P.R. at 312-13.
¶30           In sum, we find that the agency has met its burden and we therefore sustain
      the insubordination charge.       We reverse the administrative judge’s contrary
      conclusion.

      We decline to rule on the agency’s AWOL and excessive absences charges.
¶31           The agency’s AWOL charge contained 59 specifications —one for each day
      that the appellant was absent without authorization between July 5 and October 6,
      2017.      IAF, Tab 5 at 75-80.         Its excessive absence charge covered all
      267 workdays for which the appellant was absent from September 6, 2016,

      is personal in nature and limited to the complainant’s own situation is not a matter of
      public concern. Id., ¶ 47.
      In this case, the emails underlying the appellant’s insubordination charge implicate d his
      own personal grievances rather than any matter of public concern. IAF, Tab 5 at 117,
      120. For that reason alone, the appellant’s claim fails. But even if his emails could be
      construed as touching on a matter of public concern, we would find that the agency’s
      interest outweighed the appellant’s. The agency’s interest was to stop the appellant
      from contacting his former supervisor, who considered the appellant’s contact s
      harassing, and to stop the appellant from interrupting the work of thousands of
      employees with mass emails. The agency did not altogether prohibit the appellant from
      voicing his interests as an employee or citizen.
                                                                                      14

      through October 6, 2017.     Id. at 80.   The administrative judge found that the
      agency proved both charges. ID at 14-16.
¶32         On review, the appellant asserts that he was entitled to leave under the
      Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) during the periods at issue in the
      AWOL and excessive absence charges. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5 -8, 17. The appellant
      raised this issue below, but the administrative judge did not address the matter in
      her initial decision. IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 13 at 10 -11.
¶33         An agency bears the burden of proving that it complied with the FMLA as
      part of its overall burden of proving a leave-based charge. Somuk v. Department
      of the Navy, 117 M.S.P.R. 18, ¶ 11 (2011). Like most civil service employees,
      the appellant was covered under Title II of the FMLA. IAF, Tab 5 at 6; FMLA,
      Pub. L. No. 103-3, § 201(a)(1), 107 Stat. 6, 19 (codified, in pertinent part, at
      5 U.S.C. § 6381(1)(A), and incorporating the definitions of an “employee” under
      Title II of the FMLA from 5 U.S.C. § 6301(2)); 5 C.F.R. § 630.1201(b)(1)(i)(A);
      see generally 5 C.F.R. part 630, subpart L (containing the implementing
      regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)).           Under FMLA
      Title II, an eligible employee is “entitled to a total of 12 administrative
      workweeks of leave during any 12-month period” for, as relevant here, “a serious
      health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the
      employee’s position.”     5 U.S.C. § 6382(a)(1)(D); Landahl v. Department of
      Commerce, 83 M.S.P.R. 40, ¶ 8 (1999); see 5 C.F.R. §§ 610.102, 630.1202
      (defining an administrative workweek for purposes of FMLA, in relevant part, as
      an agency-designated period consisting of “7 consecutive 24 hour periods”).
¶34         This case presents an issue regarding whether the agency should have
      designated a portion of the appellant’s leave as FMLA-protected even though he
      did not invoke FMLA-protected leave. The Board has previously held that, even
      if an employee does not specifically mention the FMLA when requesting leave,
      the requirement to invoke the FMLA may be satisfied as long as the employee
      presents the agency with sufficient evidence to trigger consideration of his
                                                                                     15

      absence under the FMLA. Bowen v. Department of the Navy, 112 M.S.P.R. 607,
      ¶ 8 (2009), aff’d per curiam, 402 F. App’x 521 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, this
      holding appears to be contrary to OPM’s FMLA regulations.            Specifically,
      section 630.1203(b) provides that “[a]n employee must invoke his or her
      entitlement to FMLA leave” and generally may not invoke that entitlement
      retroactively.   Section 630.1203(h) also states that “[a]n agency may not put an
      employee on [FMLA] leave and may not subtract leave from an employee’s
      entitlement to [FMLA leave] unless the agency has obtained confirmation from
      the employee of his or her intent to invoke entitlement to [FMLA leave].” OPM
      explained these provisions by stating that, “The requirement that an employee
      must initiate action to take FMLA leave is consistent with all other Federal leave
      policies and programs in that the employee is responsible for requesting leave or
      other time off from work.” Family and Medical Leave, 65 Fed. Reg. 26,483 -01,
      26,483, 26,486-87 (May 8, 2000) (codified as amended, in relevant part, at
      5 C.F.R. § 630.1203(b), (h)).
¶35         The circumstances of this case suggest that the appellant’s continued
      absence was related to a serious health condition. See supra ¶¶ 6-10. But we
      found no indication that the appellant invoked FMLA protection for his leave,
      even though the numerous leave slips he completed during the relevant period
      contained a space for him to do so. IAF, Tab 9 at 29-30, 37-38, 41, 43, 45, 47-50.
      This seems to be true of both the 42 weeks of leave the agency granted for his
      mental health condition leading up to his AWOL, as well as the period at issue in
      the AWOL and excessive absence charges, which amounts to less than the
      12 weeks contemplated by the FMLA. So, the facts before us present a n umber of
      questions, including (1) whether Bowen remains good law, given the seemingly
      contradictory regulatory provisions, (2) whether the agency could and should
      have afforded the appellant FMLA leave for any period, despite him not invoking
      FMLA when specifically prompted with an opportunit y to do just that and, if so,
      (3) for what period should that FMLA leave have applied to his absence.
                                                                                          16

¶36         At this time, we decline to rule on these or related questions.       We also
      decline to address the appellant’s other arguments contesting these charges. PFR
      File, Tab 1 at 10-11, 17, 19, 21-22. These include arguments that he should have
      been granted advanced leave, his absence was not a burden to the agency, the
      agency did not need to fill his position, and his approved absences did not
      continue beyond a reasonable time. Id. We need not reach these issues because
      we find that the agency’s insubordination charge, alone, supports the appellant’s
      removal.   Infra ¶¶ 55-58; see, e.g., Alvarado v. Department of the Air Force,
      103 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶¶ 2, 40-41 (2006) (finding that the penalty of removal was
      reasonable based on a charge of insubordinate defiance of authority, so it was
      unnecessary to address the additional charge of misuse of Government
      equipment), aff’d, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D.N.M. 2009), aff’d, 490 F. App’x 932
      (10th Cir. 2012); Luciano v. Department of the Treasury, 88 M.S.P.R. 335,
      ¶¶ 3, 10-13, 23 (2001) (finding it unnecessary to determine whether an
      administrative judge erred in failing to sustain all of the specifications supporting
      an agency’s insubordination charge because the sustained specifications and the
      proven charge of AWOL warranted the appellant’s removal), aff’d per curiam,
      30 F. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

      The appellant did not prove his affirmative defense of disability discrimination.
¶37         The appellant argued below that his removal was the product of disability
      discrimination.   IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 11 at 12, 15.        Before we turn to the
      administrative judge’s findings and the appellant’s arguments on review, it is
      useful to recount some of the most salient facts.
¶38         The appellant began taking extensive leave in 2012, consistent with his
      psychiatrist’s letters about his condition and the need for time off. Supra ¶ 3;
      e.g., 0167 IAF, Tab 11, Part 1 at 32, 38 of 58. Among other things, these letters
      described the appellant as suffering from a deteriorating psychiatric condition that
      was, at times, totally disabling and consisting of aggressive episodes. 0167 IAF,
      Tab 11, Part 2 at 13.    Any disability-related inquiry by an employer must be
                                                                                       17

      “shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C.
      § 12112(d)(4)(A); Archerda v. Department of Defense, 121 M.S.P.R. 314, ¶ 30
      (2014). The Board previously found, in Rosario-Fabregas, 122 M.S.P.R. 468,
      ¶¶ 14-17, that the agency’s requests for a medical release in 2012 met this
      standard and were therefore permissible. The Board explained that the agency
      had a reasonable belief that the appellant’s ability to perform the essential
      functions of his position was impaired, and also reasonably believed that he posed
      a direct threat due to his condition.     Id.   In November 2012, the appellant’s
      psychiatrist indicated that he could attempt to return to a part-time schedule on a
      trial basis for 3 weeks, but the agency deemed his opinion both contradictory and
      insufficient in that it failed to explicitly address the essential functions of the
      appellant’s position. 0167 IAF, Tab 11, Part 1 at 8-9 of 58, Part 4 at 4-7 of 27.
      In the days that followed, the agency took the removal action that the Board later
      mitigated to a suspension. Supra ¶¶ 3-4.
¶39         While preparing for the appellant’s return to work in 2016, after the Board
      mitigated his removal, the agency requested a release from his medical provider.
      Supra ¶ 6.        Although the Board’s decision to mitigate the appellant’s prior
      removal did not address the sufficiency of the appellant’s November 2012
      medical update, we find that it did not suffice for purposes of the attempted return
      to duty in 2016.       This is because, among other things, the November 2012
      medical update was several years old and had merely suggested that the appellant
      was, at that point, ready for a brief trial run at working part -time. 0167 IAF,
      Tab 11, Part 4 at 4-7 of 27. The November 2012 medical update was also lacking
      in terms of the appellant’s ability to perform the essential functions of his
      position.   Id.    It instead described the appellant in general terms such as the
      appellant being able to understand and carry out only “lowest complexity
      instructions.” Id. at 7 of 27.
¶40         The appellant did not immediately submit the medical release requested in
      2016, nor did he return to work.         Instead, the appellant began requesting
                                                                                      18

      extensive annual and sick leave. Id. When the appellant did eventually submit a
      medical note from his provider, it indicated that the appellant’s condition would
      not allow his return to work until at least June 2017. Supra ¶ 7; IAF, Tab 9 at 46.
      As that date neared and in the months that followed, the agency unsuccessfully
      tried to obtain verification that the appellant was medically cleared for work
      before eventually taking the removal action before us. Supra ¶¶ 8-11.
¶41        In her initial decision, the administrative judge found that the appellant’s
      disability discrimination claim appeared to be based on the agency’s requirement
      that he provide a medical release to return to work, but the request was proper.
      ID at 17. On petition for review, the appellant disputes the administrative judge’s
      finding, arguing that agency should not have required a medical release because
      its safety concerns were unfounded. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8 -9, 22.
¶42        The appellant has not alleged that he provided any updated medical
      documentation to the agency that might have ameliorated the agency’s prior
      concerns.   Nor has he presented any such evidence before the Board.           The
      agency’s longstanding and justified concerns about the appellant’s ability to
      safely and effectively perform the essential functions of his position and his
      previously diagnosed potential for aggression would have been exacerbated by his
      submission of medical notes indicating he “should not return to work.”        IAF,
      Tab 9 at 40, 42, 44, 46.     The notes provided no explanation suggesting the
      appellant had recovered.    Id.   The only specific information the appellant’s
      psychiatrist provided for his continued absence was that the appellant was
      “anxious,” his capacity to concentrate was decreased, and he had “worry related
      to several issues arising in the agency with his return to work.” Id. at 46. Thus,
      the appellant’s own medical evidence suggested he had not improved, and may
      have deteriorated.
¶43        On review, the appellant also argues that the agency committed disability
      discrimination by failing to offer him a reasonable accommodation for his
      condition. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8-9, 15-16, 20. The appellant raised this argument
                                                                                    19

      below, but the administrative judge did not address it. IAF, Tab 11 at 8, 11-12,
      14-16, 22-23, Tab 36 at 12-13. We have therefore considered the argument but
      find it unavailing.   As the Board previously explained in his prior appeal, a
      failure to accommodate claim will fail if an employee’s refusal to engage in the
      interactive process prevented the agency from identifying a reasonable
      accommodation. Rosario-Fabregas, 122 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 18; see Herb L. v. U.S.
      Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120140330, 2016 WL 4492212, at *7
      (Aug. 17, 2016) (finding that a complainant who did not provide requested
      documentation regarding the “parameters” of his need to rest his hip did not
      demonstrate that he was entitled to a reasonable accommodation) .      Here, the
      appellant requested an accommodation in the form of part-time work in
      February 2017, at the same time that his psychiatrist said he was unable to work.
      IAF, Tab 8 at 190, Tab 9 at 44, 46.       The agency promptly and repeatedly
      requested supportive medical documentation that the appellant never provided.
      IAF, Tab 6 at 35-36, 237, Tab 8 at 188-90, 201-02, 244-45. The agency’s request
      was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances because whether or how
      a modification to his work schedule would have enabled the appellant to perform
      his duties is not obvious and had not been addressed in any of the documentation
      that the appellant had previously provided. See White v. Department of Veterans
      Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 405, ¶ 14 (2013).     Therefore, the appellant’s failure to
      engage precludes him from prevailing on this failure to accommodate claim.
¶44        The appellant separately argues that the agency should have accommodated
      him by providing him additional leave. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9. The use of accrued
      paid leave or unpaid leave can be a form of reasonable accommodation. Willa B.
      v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2021000628, 2022 WL
      1631370, at *5 (Apr. 27, 2022). However, “LWOP for an indefinite period of
      time with absolutely no indication that one will or could return is not an
      accommodation contemplated under the Rehabilitation Act.”           Hilda H. v.
      Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162443, 2018 WL
                                                                                        20

      1392246, at *4 (Mar. 6, 2018), req. to reconsider denied, EEOC Request
      No. 0520180318, 2018 WL 3584199 (July 3, 2018).               Before proposing his
      removal, the agency already had provided the appellant with nearly 1 full year of
      approved leave while it waited for some indication that he might be able to return
      to duty. We find that the appellant has not shown that the agency violated his
      rights by declining to continue with this course of action.
¶45         The appellant also argues that the agency removed him in retaliation for
      opposing disability discrimination, i.e., for refusing to sign what he believed to be
      an overly broad release for the agency-appointed psychiatrist to obtain his health
      records. PFR File, Tab 1 at 11-14, 19-20. However, because the appellant did
      not raise this argument below, and it is not based on previously unavailable
      evidence, we decline to consider it.       See Clay v. Department of the Army,
      123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016).

      The appellant did not prove his affirmative defense of discrimination based on
      national origin.
¶46         National origin discrimination is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil
      Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a). To prove an affirmative defense of
      national origin discrimination, an appellant must prove that national origin was a
      motivating factor in the contested personnel action.          Pridgen v. Office of
      Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 20-21. Such a showing may entitle
      an appellant to injunctive or other “forward looking reli ef.” Id., ¶ 22. To obtain
      full relief, including status quo ante relief, compensatory damages, or other forms
      of relief related to the end result of an employment decision, an appellant must
      prove that the prohibited consideration “was a but-for cause of the employment
      outcome.” Id. (quoting Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168, 1171, 1177-78).
¶47         In this case, the administrative judge found that the appellant was “of the
      view that the agency discriminated against him because he is Hispanic,” but that
      the appellant did not present any evidence to support his claim. ID at 17. The
      appellant disputes this finding on review, arguing that his 2010 removal without
                                                                                          21

      due process constitutes evidence of national origin discrimination.         PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 15, 23. We find, however, that the procedural defects in the agency’s
      2010 removal action are not probative of whether the appellant’s 2018 removal
      was motivated by national origin discrimination.               We agree with the
      administrative judge that the appellant has presented no evidence to support this
      affirmative defense. 11 ID at 17.

      The appellant did not prove his affirmative defense of whistleblower reprisal.
¶48         In adverse action appeal, an appellant’s claim of reprisal for making a
      protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), or engaging in protected
      activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D), is analyzed under the
      burden-shifting scheme set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e).         Alarid, 122 M.S.P.R.
      600, ¶ 12.    The appellant must first prove that his disclosure or activity was
      protected under sections 2302(b)(8) or (b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).         Alarid,
      122 M.S.P.R. 600, ¶¶ 12-13. He must next prove that his protected disclosure or
      activity was a contributing factor in the challenged personnel action. Id. If the
      appellant makes both of these showings by preponderant evidence, the burden of
      persuasion shifts to the agency to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it
      would have taken the same action in the absence of the appellant’s disclosure or
      activity. Id., ¶ 14.
¶49         In this case, the appellant argued below that his removal was in retaliation
      for protected whistleblowing, but the grounds of his claim were unclear. IAF,
      Tab 11 at 4, 23, 30, 32. The administrative judge notified the appellant of how to
      prove an affirmative defense of whistleblower retaliation, IAF, Tab 17 at 2-5, but
      the appellant’s subsequent pleadings did little to clarify the matter. In any event,
      the administrative judge construed the appellant’s defense as pertaining to the
      series of emails at issue in the insubordination charge, i.e., the ones that led to his

      11
        To the extent that the appellant’s claim could be construed as an affirmative defense
      of race discrimination, which is prohibited under the same statute, the same analysis
      would apply. See Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 20-22.
                                                                                      22

      supervisor’s instructions and the ones that violated those instructions . ID at 19;
      e.g., IAF, Tab 5 at 120-39, Tab 6 at 9. The administrative judge found that the
      appellant provided no evidence in support of the allegations contained in those
      emails and that he therefore failed to show that that he had a reasonable belief
      that either of the emails evidenced Government wrongdoing. ID at 19.
¶50         On petition for review, the appellant argues that the agency was overly
      lenient with management officials who committed misconduct similar to that for
      which the appellant had been removed in 2010. PFR File, Tab 1 at 22 -23. In
      support of his contention, the appellant cites to a discovery response that the
      agency provided him in connection with his second removal appeal. Id. at 23;
      IAF, Tab 6 at 104-10. The appellant’s argument provides no basis to disturb the
      initial decision.
¶51         A protected whistleblower disclosure is a disclosure that an appellant
      reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, o r regulation, gross
      mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial
      and specific danger to public health or safety. Smith v. Department of the Army,
      2022 MSPB 4, ¶ 14. A reasonable belief exists if a disinterested observer with
      knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable by the
      appellant could reasonably conclude that the actions of the Government evidence
      one of the categories of wrongdoing listed in section 2302(b)(8)(A).      Id. The
      appellant need not prove that the matter disclosed actually established one of the
      types of wrongdoing listed under section 2302(b)(8)(A); rather, the appellant
      must show that the matter disclosed was one which a reasonable person in his
      position would believe evidenced any of the situations specified in 5 U.S.C.
      § 2302(b)(8). Id.
¶52         In his August 24, 2017 email, the appellant accused the agency of abus ing
      its authority by allowing certain higher-level management officials accused of
      misconduct to separate from service with a clean record. IAF, Tab 6 at 9. The
      agency’s discovery response, however, indicates that one of the two named
                                                                                         23

      officials resigned in the face of a notice of proposed removal and that the other
      was disciplined with a letter of reprimand and continued his employment at the
      agency. Id. at 104-05. Therefore, even having considered the agency’s discovery
      response, we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant has provided
      no evidence to support the allegations contained in this email. ID at 19.
¶53         We separately note that the appellant’s response to the agency’s cross
      petition for review seems to present another theory about his whistleblower
      retaliation claim. The appellant suggests that his August 24, 2017 mass email
      was   also   protected   whistleblowing   because   it   contained   allegations   of
      discrimination. PFR File, Tab 5 at 19; IAF, Tab 6 at 9. We need not consider
      this claim because a reply is limited to factual and legal issues raised by another
      party in response to the petition for review and may not raise new allegations of
      error. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(4). In any event, even if we were to consider this
      argument, we would not grant the appellant’s petition for review. Although the
      appellant’s email message summarily asserted that a certain agency office
      discriminated against Hispanics, IAF, Tab 6 at 9, this allegation is not a protected
      disclosure, see Salerno v. Department of the Interior, 123 M.S.P.R. 230, ¶ 6
      (2016) (recognizing that disclosures must be specific and detailed, not vague
      allegations of wrongdoing); see also Edwards v. Department of Labor,
      2022 MSPB 9, ¶¶ 10-17, 22 (reaffirming that Title VII-related claims are
      excluded from protection under the whistleblower protection statutes).

      The appellant has not shown that his removal was the product of harmful
      procedural error or a due process violation.
¶54         An agency’s failure to provide a tenured public employee with an
      opportunity to present a response, either in person or in writing, to an appealable
      agency action that deprives him of his property right in his employment
      constitutes an abridgement of his constitutional right to minimum due process of
      law, i.e., prior notice and an opportunity to respond.        Cleveland Board of
      Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). In this case, the appellant
                                                                                     24

      asserts on review, as he did below, that the agency violated his right to due
      process. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7, 11, 13, 15-16, 23-24; IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 11
      at 11, 19, 27, Tab 36 at 5-6, 12, 17. The administrative judge did not address the
      due process issue specifically, but having reviewed the appellant’s arguments, we
      find that he has not established a due process violation. Although the appellant
      asserts that the agency violated his due process rig hts in many respects, his
      assertions do not pertain to the issues of notice and opportunity to respond. For
      instance, the appellant argues that the agency violated his due process rights by
      requiring him to obtain a medical release before returning to wor k, by failing to
      provide medical records to the agency-appointed psychiatrist without the
      appellant’s authorization, and by not granting him additional LWOP. PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 11, 13, 22. We find that none of the appellant’s arguments are sufficient
      to establish a due process violation.
¶55         The appellant also argues on review that the agency committed harmful
      procedural error. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, 7, 16-17, 23-24. However, it does not
      appear that he raised this issue below. See Clay, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6. In any
      event, to prove that the agency committed harmful procedural error under
      5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(A), an appellant must show both that the agency committed
      procedural error and that the error was harmful.     Parker v. Defense Logistics
      Agency, 1 M.S.P.R. 505, 513 (1980). Here, the appellant has neither identified
      nor cited the agency rules or regulations in question, and thus has not shown
      procedural error. Simmons v. Department of the Navy, 11 M.S.P.R. 82, 83-84
      (1982).   For instance, he argues that the agency’s failure to account for his
      difficulty in obtaining a medical release and its failure to grant him additional
      LWOP were harmful procedural errors, but he identified no corresponding agency
      rule. PFR File, Tab 1 at 17, 22. Therefore, even if we were to consider the
      appellant’s late-raised arguments, we would find that he has not established his
      affirmative defense.
                                                                                      25

      The Board lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal as a constructive suspension
      claim.
¶56         The appellant argues for the first time on petition for review that his
      absence from duty constituted an appealable constructive suspension. PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 24.    Although the appellant did not raise this argument below, we
      exercise our discretion to address it here. Concerning the absence at issue in this
      appeal, from September 6, 2016, through his August 24, 2018 removal, we f ind
      that the appellant cannot establish that any period of this absence constituted an
      appealable constructive suspension.
¶57         To establish Board jurisdiction over a constructive suspension appeal, an
      appellant must prove by preponderant evidence that (1) he l acked a meaningful
      choice in his absence; and (2) it was the agency’s wrongful actions that deprived
      him of that choice. Bean v. U.S. Postal Service, 120 M.S.P.R. 397, ¶ 8 (2013).
      As explained above, regardless of whether the appellant had a meaningful choice
      in his absence, no period of that absence was the result of the agency’s improper
      acts. From September 6, 2016, through June 1, 2017, the appellant was absent on
      his psychiatrist’s orders, and thereafter, he was absent because he was unable to
      furnish a medical release, which the agency was fully entitled to require as a
      condition of his return.

      Removal is the maximum reasonable penalty for the appellant’s insubordination.
¶58         Because we have declined to rule on the AWOL and excessive absences
      charges, and we are proceeding based only on the insubordination charge, it is
      appropriate for us to analyze the penalty as if not all char ges were sustained.
      Alvarado, 103 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 44. When the Board sustains fewer than all of the
      agency’s charges, and the agency either indicates that it would have imposed the
      same penalty based on the sustained charges, or does not indicate to the contrary,
      the Board’s role is not to independently determine the penalty, but to decide
      whether the agency’s choice of penalty is appropriate. Negron v. Department of
      Justice, 95 M.S.P.R. 561, ¶ 32 (2004) (citing Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246,
                                                                                      26

      1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The Board cannot “substitute its will” for that of the
      agency, which is entrusted with managing its workforce. Id. (quoting Lachance,
      178 F.3d at 1258).      Rather, the Board “may mitigate an unreasonably severe
      agency penalty to bring the penalty within the bounds of reasonableness.”       Id.
      (quoting Lachance, 178 F.3d at 1258).
¶59        As previously mentioned, the proposal to remove the appellant stated that
      any of the charges would support his removal from service. IAF, Tab 5 at 75-84.
      Further, the agency submitted a declaration from the deciding official, in which
      he stated under penalty of perjury that “[a]ny one of the charges alone w ould have
      supported [the] decision to remove [the appellant] from service .” IAF, Tab 35
      at 19-20. Such a declaration, if uncontested as appears to be the case here, proves
      the facts it asserts.     Woodall v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
      30 M.S.P.R. 271, 273 (1986).
¶60        The deciding official completed a Douglas factor checklist around the same
      time as his decision letter.    IAF, Tab 5 at 14-15; see Douglas v. Veterans
      Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981) (providing a nonexhaustive list of
      factors that may be relevant in determining an appropriate penalty) .         This
      checklist described the appellant’s documented mental and emotional distress as a
      mitigating factor, along with his 29 years of Federal service. IAF, Tab 5 at 15. It
      also indicated that the insubordination charge, alone, would warrant removal
      under the agency’s table of penalties. Id. at 14. The deciding official’s Douglas
      factor checklist further referred to numerous other factors as aggravating for
      purposes of the penalty determination, including the seriousness of the appellant’s
      insubordination, his prior 30-day suspension, the multiple notices that his conduct
      was unacceptable, and his lack of remorse. Id. at 14-15.
¶61        In his petition, the appellant suggests that removal was too harsh a penalty
      for any of his alleged misconduct, particularly because of his past service and
      disabilities. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, 16. We disagree. We find that the facts at
      hand support the appellant’s removal, even if we only consider the sustained
                                                                                           27

      insubordination charge. See Parbs, 107 M.S.P.R. 559, ¶¶ 9, 12, 24-26 (construing
      an agency’s charge as one of insubordination concerning a single incident and
      finding that it warranted removal); Murry v. General Services Administration,
      93 M.S.P.R. 554, ¶¶ 2, 6, 8-9 (2003) (finding that an administrative judge erred
      by mitigating a removal to a suspension when the agency proved only one of its
      three specifications supporting its insubordination charge), aff’d, 97 F. App’x 319
      (Fed. Cir. 2004).
¶62         In conclusion, we find that the agency proved its charge of insubordination.
      We further find that the insubordination charge, alone, supports the penalty of
      removal, so we need not rule on the agency’s AWOL and excess ive absences
      charges. We also find that the appellant failed to prove any affirmative defense.
      Accordingly, we sustain the appellant’s removal from service.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 12
            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
      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

      12
        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.
                                                                                      28

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 t he 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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
                                                                                 29

      (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
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:
                                                                                     30

                            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. 13 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).

13
   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.
                                                                                31

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