Court Opinion

ID: 9957864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 16:00:24.083637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:58.022264
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

WILLIAM DOYLE,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DE-0752-21-0204-I-2

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 4, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Bobby R. Devadoss , Esquire, Claire Ocana , Esquire, and Morgan
        Valasquez , Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the appellant.

      Eric J. Teegarden , Esquire, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, 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 his removal. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the
following 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
address an additional due process claim, we AFFIRM the initial decision.

                                 BACKGROUND
       The appellant was removed from his position as Alcohol & Drug Control
Coordinator for the Army Reserve Command at Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City,
Utah, for “sending an electronic mail (email) message to multiple recipients that
included language of a threatening nature and for being on duty while under the
influence of alcohol/drugs, to a degree which would interfere with proper
performance of duty or would be prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline.”
Doyle v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-21-0204-I-1,
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7 at 13. The agency specifically alleged that the
appellant sent an email to approximately 7,500 employees and contractors within
the 76th Operation Response Command in which he said “[y]ou are traitors to the
US Constitution and God. You will die.” Id. The agency further alleged that on
the same day, the appellant had telephone conversations both with his first-level
supervisor and with local police in which he admitted sending the email and
appeared to be intoxicated because he was slurring his words. Id. at 13, 96. As a
result of the appellant’s email, “tenant organizations on Fort Douglas released
their workforces early” and “Fort Douglas increased its security posture.”
Id. at 14.
                                                                                   3

      The appellant filed this appeal.     IAF, Tab 1 at 4, 6.      After holding a
hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming the removal.
Doyle v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-21-0204-I-2,
Refiled Appeal File (RAF), Tab 7, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 17. She found that
the agency proved its narrative charge by preponderant evidence.         ID at 5-7.
She rejected the appellant’s implied arguments that the agency violated his due
process rights. ID at 12-16; e.g., IAF, Tab 7 at 24-26. She concluded that the
agency proved a nexus between the appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency of
the service, that the deciding official properly considered the relevant Douglas
factors, and that the penalty of removal was within the limits of reasonableness. 2
ID at 7-12.
      The appellant has filed a petition for review, and the agency has filed a
response. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3. On review, the appellant
challenges the administrative judge’s finding that the agency met its burden of
proof concerning the charge and the reasonableness of the penalty. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 6-9, 13-15. He argues that the administrative judge erred in crediting the
testimony of both his first-level supervisor and the deciding official. Id. at 11-13.
He also reasserts most of his due process claims and raises new ones. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 9-11, 14-15.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The administrative judge properly sustained the charge.
      The agency proposed and ultimately removed the appellant based on a
single, unlabeled narrative charge.    IAF, Tab 7 at 11-15, 87-92.      It generally
described his misconduct as sending an email with “threatening language” and
being under the influence of alcohol such that it could interfere with his work
performance or the maintenance of discipline. Id. at 13, 87. The administrative
judge found that the agency proved its charge, including that the appellant sent
2
  In Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981), the Board
provided a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to penalty determinations.
                                                                                  4

the email in question while working and was intoxicated when he did so.
ID at 5-7. She also concluded that the appellant’s email caused the agency to
take certain increased security measures and caused tenant organizations
to release their full-time staff early on the day in question.    ID at 3, 7; IAF,
Tab 7 at 22.
      The parties do not dispute on review that the appellant sent the email while
working.   ID at 6; PFR File, Tab 1 at 7.      However, the appellant appears to
disagree that the agency’s increased security measures were sufficient to justify
its description of his email as threatening.    ID at 7; PFR File, Tab 1 at 14.
He concedes that he had “one drink during lunch prior to sending his email” and
that he was still under the influence of alcohol when he spoke to the police 1 hour
after sending the email.   Hearing Transcript (HT) at 13, 16 (testimony of the
appellant); IAF, Tab 7 at 97; PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. However, he disagrees that, as
charged by the agency, he was intoxicated such that he could not perform his job
duties. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-7. He also argues that the agency failed to prove
that his email interfered with the maintenance of discipline. Id. at 8.
      We turn first to the appellant’s arguments that the agency’s security
measures do not reflect that his email was threatening, and, relatedly, that the
agency failed to prove his email was prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline.
PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-7, 11.      Although not framed by the appellant as such,
we find that these arguments go to the interpretation of the agency’s charge.
An agency is not required to affix a label to a charge but may simply describe
actions that constitute misbehavior in narrative form in its charge letter. Otero v.
U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 198, 202-03 (1997). Hypertechnical common
law pleading is not Board practice, and so an agency is not required to narrowly
label its charge with magic words for it to be sustained by the Board. Id. at 203.
Here, the administrative judge appropriately found that the gravamen of the
agency’s charge was that the appellant sent the email at issue and was impaired
by alcohol during the workday. ID at 6. Accordingly, she found that the agency
                                                                                     5

was not required to prove that the appellant threatened his coworkers under the
Metz test, and instead sustained the specification because the agency proved the
facts outlined in its proposal. ID at 7 (citing Metz v. Department of the Treasury,
780 F.2d 1001, 1002-04 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (identifying five evidentiary factors for
determining whether an agency proved an employee made a threat under the
applicable reasonable person standard)).         We find no error in this respect.
The mere fact that an agency describes an appellant’s conduct as “threatening” in
its narrative charge does not require the application of Metz.              See Otero,
73 M.S.P.R. at 201-04 (declining to apply the Metz test to a charge of improper
conduct notwithstanding the agency’s description of the appellant’s conduct as
“threatening” in the narrative accompanying the charge); see also Pinegar v.
Federal Election Commission, 105 M.S.P.R. 677, ¶ 28 (2007) (noting that the
agency charged the appellant with inappropriate remarks, not with making a
threat, and therefore, it was not required to prove whether the conduct constituted
a threat); Wiley v. U.S. Postal Service, 102 M.S.P.R. 535, ¶¶ 2, 10-11 (2006)
(finding that the agency was not required to prove that the appellant’s threatening
remarks constituted a threat under the Metz test when the agency charged him
with improper conduct in violation of its zero tolerance policy based on
threatening remarks, which he made in the presence of two coworkers), aff’d per
curiam, 218 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the agency specified in its
proposed removal that the appellant sent the email, its contents, the date it was
sent, and its recipients. IAF, Tab 7 at 87. We discern no basis to disturb the
administrative judge’s unchallenged determination that the agency proved these
facts; thus, she did not err in finding that the agency proved its narrative charge.
ID at 5-6.
       In any event, the appellant’s argument regarding the agency’s security
response is unavailing.    According to the appellant, the agency was already
considering increasing security. PFR File, Tab 1 at 13. The record contradicts
the   appellant’s   argument.    During    the    hearing,   the   Fourth   Protection
                                                                                        6

Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC) testified that he was considering
increasing security at the Fort Douglas gates due to the events of January 6, 2021,
but decided it was unnecessary due to other precautions in place. HT at 78-79,
83-85 (testimony of the NCOIC).          However, he testified that the General in
charge of Fort Douglas ordered that military police be present at the gates in
response to the appellant’s email.        HT at 78-79 (testimony of the NCOIC).
The appellant has not challenged the veracity of the NCOIC’s testimony. Thus,
the appellant’s assertion that the agency did not increase security in response to
his statement to approximately 7,500 employees, “you will die,” is unsupported.
IAF, Tab 7 at 97.
      We similarly reject the appellant’s argument that the agency did not prove
that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which would interfere with
the proper performance of duty. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7-8. Again, we note that the
agency used a narrative charge. When, as here, the agency’s charge contains a
narrative explanation for the basis of its action, the agency may sustain its charge
by proving one or more of the incidents described therein; proof of every incident
is not required.    Otero, 73 M.S.P.R. at 204.        In any event, when an agency
provides two alternative descriptions of a charge, it need only prove one of them.
Jenkins v. Department of the Treasury, 104 M.S.P.R. 345, ¶ 9 (citing Lachance v.
Merit Systems Protection Board, 147 F.3d 1367, 1372-74 (explaining that when
an agency “set forth two alternative characterizations” of a charge, proof of one
of those alternatives may be sufficient to sustain the charge)), aff’d per curiam,
244 F. App’x 349 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
      Here, the agency alleged that the appellant was “under the influence . . . to
a degree which would interfere with proper performance of duty, or would be
prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline.”           IAF, Tab 7 at 87. 3        Thus,

3
  To the extent the appellant is arguing on review that the agency failed to prove he was
intoxicated, or that his intoxication caused him to send out the email, we are not
persuaded. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7-8. In responding to the proposed removal, the
appellant sought to excuse his behavior, in part, by indicating that he had been drinking.
                                                                                         7

the agency could prove misconduct based either on the appellant’s potential
inability to perform his duties or the potential prejudice to the maintenance of
discipline. As discussed above, the agency proved the latter, and thus the charge.
      The administrative judge properly found that the agency did not have to
prove a particular level of response to show that the appellant’s conduct “would
be prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline.”            ID at 7.      We note that
“discipline” is a broad term, which the dictionary defines as “control gained by
enforcing obedience or order” and “orderly.”            Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary 330 (10th ed. 2002). The appellant’s intoxication clearly impacted the
state of order, because his email caused tenant agencies on Fort Douglas to
release employees early as a safety precaution. IAF, Tab 7 at 14, 22.
      Although it was not necessary for the agency to prove the alternative basis
of its charge, we conclude it did so. The appellant’s intoxication at work plainly
interfered with his job duties as the Alcohol & Drug Control Coordinator, such as
training individuals who conduct drug and alcohol testing. HT at 8 (testimony of
the appellant). As the deciding official reasonably explained, “[t]he [Alcohol and
Drug Coordinator] should be a person who [is not intoxicated while on duty].

IAF, Tab 7 at 25. He characterized his drinking as “a terrible decision,” and described
his efforts to “ensure that nothing like this happens again,” including getting “rid of all
the alcohol in [his] house.” Id. Further, he essentially admitted during his hearing
testimony that he was under the influence of alcohol when he sent the email. HT
at 12-13 (testimony of the appellant). An agency may rely on an appellant’s admissions
in support of its charge, and an appellant’s admission to a charge can suffice as proof of
the charge without additional proof from the agency. Cole v. Department of the Air
Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 640, ¶ 9 (2014). Here, the appellant did not attempt to recant his
admissions or claim they were involuntary. Further, his testimony is consistent with his
prior admission. Therefore, we find his admission and testimony are preponderant
evidence that his use of alcohol caused him to send out the email. See id., ¶¶ 9-11
(finding that an agency proved an appellant used marijuana when he made numerous
unrecanted admissions that he did not claim were coerced or otherwise involuntary). In
light of this determination, we decline to address the appellant’s argument that the
administrative judge should not have credited the testimony of the appellant’s first-level
supervisor as to the appellant’s slurred speech and “tirade” during a conversation
following the email. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8; ID at 6-7; HT at 33-34 (testimony of the
appellant’s first-level supervisor).
                                                                                       8

There’s a lot of trust we place in . . . the [Alcohol and Drug Coordinator] as well
to adhere to the same standards we would expect of service members[.]”
HT at 53 (testimony of the deciding official).
      Therefore, the appellant has not provided a reason to disturb the
administrative judge’s finding that the agency proved the essence of its charge.

The administrative judge properly rejected the appellant’s due process arguments.
      The appellant also challenges the penalty of removal on due process
grounds.   Specifically, he argues that (1) the deciding official consulted with
“Legal and LMER” without informing the appellant, (2) the agency did not
specify which infraction on the table of penalties covered the appellant’s
misconduct, and (3) the deciding official said he relied on the appellant’s lack of
trust in his coworkers although the issue of trust was not mentioned in the
proposed removal letter. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-11, 14-15. The appellant also
alleges that the agency never provided him with copies of coworkers’ complaints,
social media posts, and media requests concerning the email, despite the fact that
both the proposal and final decision letter referenced them in support of the
penalty of removal. Id.; IAF, Tab 7 at 14, 22. The administrative judge rejected
these arguments below, reasoning that the appellant had a meaningful opportunity
to respond to all of the evidence the deciding official considered. 4 ID at 12-16.
      A deciding official violates an employee’s due process rights when he
relies upon new and material ex parte information as a basis for his decisions on
either the merits of a proposed charge or the penalty to be imposed. Ward v. U.S.
Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1279-80 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Stone v. Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 179 F.3d 1368, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 1999). While
confirming or clarifying information is not new, previously undisclosed opinions

4
  The administrative judge found the appellant failed to prove that the deciding official
considered the U.S. Army Reserve’s decision to permanently revoke the appellant’s
access to its classified and unclassified networks. ID at 15-16; RAF, Tab 2 at 9-14.
The appellant does not challenge this determination on review, and we discern no basis
to disturb it.
                                                                                     9

on the evidence are.      Johnson v. Department of the Air Force, 50 F.4th 110,
115-16 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
      The appellant has not identified any new and material evidence the
deciding official purportedly obtained in conversations with “Legal and LMER.”
See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(a)(2) (“A petitioner who alleges that the judge made
erroneous findings of material fact must explain why the challenged factual
determination is incorrect and identify specific evidence in the record that
demonstrates the error.”). Nor has he challenged the veracity of the deciding
official’s testimony that his conversation with “Command’s attorney” did nothing
more than confirm that removal was not “outside of [his] bounds as the deciding
official.” HT at 52-53 (testimony of the deciding official).
      Similarly, the appellant has not shown that the agency’s failure to specify
an offense in the table of penalties and explicitly reference his lack of trust in the
proposal letter were new and material evidence. Regarding the agency’s table of
penalties, the appellant appears to be reraising his argument from below that
he was not able to respond fully to the proposed removal because the agency did
not label its charge. 5 HT at 26-27 (testimony of the appellant); IAF, Tab 7 at 24,
27-28. The administrative judge found no due process violation, and we agree.
ID at 13-14.     An agency denies an appellant due process when its deciding
official relies, without notifying the appellant, on the recommended penalty in its
table of penalties for an offense with which he was not charged.            Jenkins v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 118 M.S.P.R. 161, ¶¶ 9-12 (2012). However,
the mere lack of a charge label is not a violation of due process.         See Otero,
73 M.S.P.R. at 202.

5
  The appellant also suggested below that the agency erred in failing to provide him
with a copy of its table of penalties. IAF, Tab 7 at 27-28. The administrative judge
was not persuaded, noting that the table was publicly available online. ID at 14. We
further observe that the appellant submitted a copy with his prehearing submissions
below. RAF, Tab 2 at 26-33. The appellant does not contest the determination that he
could have viewed the table of penalties at any time on the internet, and we discern no
basis to disturb it.
                                                                                 10

       Consistent with the agency’s decision to use a narrative charge, the
deciding official testified that he generally considered the agency’s table of
penalties but did not “know that there was one [offense that he] considered the
most.” HT at 64 (testimony of the deciding official); IAF, Tab 7 at 22, 24. The
appellant has not identified any evidence that the deciding official considered an
offense that was inconsistent with the agency’s narrative charge.       Nor did he
testify that he viewed the narrative charge as correlating with a particular offense
on the agency’s table. Therefore, the appellant has not stated a basis to grant
review.
       We likewise find that the deciding official’s reliance on the appellant’s
lack of trust in his coworkers did not violate his due process rights.          The
appellant’s attorney made this due process argument in his closing argument;
however, the administrative judge did not address it.       HT at 91-92 (closing
argument of the appellant’s attorney). Therefore, we modify the initial decision
to do so. An employee is “not deprived of due process by not being advised in
advance that the deciding official might draw [an] inference from the nature of
the charged conduct.”     Harding v. U.S. Naval Academy, 567 F. App’x 920,
925-26 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 6 The agency’s proposal notice quoted the appellant’s
email, in which he identified the approximately 7,500 coworkers receiving it as
“traitors.”   IAF, Tab 7 at 87, 97.    In making his penalty determination, the
deciding official observed that the appellant “has made it clear that the does not
trust [his coworkers] and [they] are traitors, a quite slanderous accusation.” Id.
at 23. Similarly, the deciding official testified that the use of the word “traitor”
in the proposal notice “signifie[d] some lack of trust” by the appellant in his
coworkers.    HT at 62 (testimony of the deciding official).      We find that the
agency did not violate the appellant’s due process because the deciding official

6
 The Board may rely on unpublished decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit if it finds the court’s reasoning persuasive, as we do here. See
Mauldin v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 513, ¶ 12 (2011).
                                                                                     11

logically inferred from the use of the word “traitors” that the appellant did not
trust his coworkers.
      Finally, the appellant argued below and on review that the agency failed to
provide him with evidence of coworkers’ complaints, social media posts,
or media requests concerning his email.        HT at 91 (closing argument of the
appellant’s attorney); PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-10. The administrative judge rejected
this argument because there was no evidence that the deciding official received
those documents himself.      ID at 14-15; HT at 64 (testimony of the deciding
official). She properly concluded that the appellant knew the information would
be considered and had the opportunity to respond before he was removed.
ID at 15; see Stone, 179 F.3d at 1377.        Specifically, she quoted the proposal
notice, which stated “[y]our email has appeared on social media.”            ID at 15
(quoting IAF, Tab 7 at 88).
      In responding to the proposal, the appellant acknowledged that it stated that
his email “may have been shared online,” but defended his actions on the basis
that he had not shared the email or seen any online posts containing it.
IAF, Tab 7 at 28. He did not request any further materials. Id. The Board has
found that there is no due process violation when, as here, the appellant fails to
request the underlying materials on which the agency relies in reaching the
removal decision. McNab v. Department of the Army, 121 M.S.P.R. 661, ¶ 18
(2014). For the same reason, the appellant cannot claim that the agency’s failure
to provide evidence of complaints, social media posts, or media requests
constituted harmful error. 7 See id., ¶¶ 16-17 (finding no harmful error because
7
  Once the Board determines that the ex parte communications did not violate the
appellant’s due process rights, it must consider whether the agency’s failure to specify
in its proposed removal a charge in the table of penalties, that it was considering the
appellant’s lack of trust in his coworkers, and that the deciding official had a
conversation with “Legal and LMER” constituted harmful error. Ward, 634 F.3d
at 1282. The appellant has not pointed to any rule the agency violated, and we are not
aware of one. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the agency would reach a different
conclusion in the absence of such error. Stephen v. Department of the Air Force,
47 M.S.P.R. 672, 685 (1991) (explaining that the Board will reverse the action for
                                                                                     12

the appellant did not request the materials underlying his removal). Therefore,
we affirm the administrative judge’s finding that the agency’s failure to provide
these documents did not amount to a due process violation.

The administrative judge properly found that the agency established a nexus
between the appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency of the service.
      The administrative judge concluded that there was a nexus between the
appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency of the service.                 ID at 7-8.
The appellant avers that the agency failed to prove that his removal promotes the
efficiency of the service for a variety of reasons, including for example that
“there is no tangible evidence that this event caused the Agency to need to
increase security.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 14-15. There is a presumption of nexus
when the misconduct occurred in part at work. Campbell v. Department of the
Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 674, ¶ 24 (2016) (citing Parker v. U.S. Postal Service,
819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). As the administrative judge found and the
appellant does not dispute, the appellant’s sustained misconduct occurred while
he was on duty and involved the use of Government equipment.                  ID at 8.
Therefore, we find the appellant’s arguments without merit and affirm the
administrative judge’s finding that the agency proved nexus.

The administrative judge properly found that the penalty was within the limits of
reasonableness.
      The administrative judge found that the deciding official properly
considered the relevant Douglas factors before concluding that removal was
appropriate. ID at 8-11. She therefore deferred to his penalty selection. ID at 8.
After reviewing the deciding official’s penalty analysis, the administrative judge

harmful error only when the evidence and argument of record shows that the procedural
error was likely to have caused the agency to reach a conclusion different from the one
it would have reached in the absence or cure of the error). Nor did the fact that the
deciding official did not review the social media posts constitute harmful error because
the appellant has not identified any rule requiring the deciding official to review the
documents, and there is no suggestion that he would have reached a different conclusion
had he either reviewed the documents or not referenced them in the removal decision.
See Stephen, 47 M.S.P.R. at 685.
                                                                               13

concluded that a removal did not exceed the tolerable limits of reasonable.
ID at 8-12.   The appellant again argues that the penalty of removal is
unreasonable. PFR File, Tab 1 at 13-15; RAF, Tab 2 at 4, Tab 4 at 4.
      When, as here, all of the agency’s charges have been sustained, the Board
will review the agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency
considered all of the relevant factors and exercised management discretion within
the tolerable limits of reasonableness. Davis v. U.S. Postal Service, 120 M.S.P.R.
457, ¶ 6 (2013). In Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06
(1981), the Board provided a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to penalty
determinations. The Board will modify the penalty only when it finds that the
deciding official failed to weigh the relevant factors or that the penalty the
agency imposed clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonableness.              Davis,
120 M.S.P.R. 457, ¶ 6.
      The administrative judge concluded that the deciding official properly
considered the relevant Douglas factors based on his written analysis and
testimony. ID at 8-11. She credited the deciding official’s testimony concerning
the severity of the appellant’s misconduct and its relation to his job duties.
ID at 9-10. Specifically, she credited the deciding official’s testimony that the
appellant, as the Alcohol & Drug Control Coordinator, should not have been
intoxicated on duty.     ID at 9; HT at 53 (testimony of the deciding official).
As discussed above and contrary to the appellant’s suggestion, the agency
increased its security because of his email.     HT at 82-85 (testimony of the
NCOIC). Further, tenant organizations released their full-time staff early on the
day in question. IAF, Tab 7 at 22.
      The administrative judge found that organizations with whom the appellant
worked expressed concern about working with him and that his email appeared on
social media, thereby rejecting the appellant’s argument that his email did not
create notoriety for the agency.     ID at 16; HT at 39, 42-43 (testimony of the
Human Resources Officer), 54-55 (testimony of the deciding official); PFR File,
                                                                                    14

Tab 1 at 15. Although the appellant argues that the two most similar charges on
the agency’s table of penalties do not list removal as a penalty for a first offense,
the table is only one factor to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a
penalty.    PFR File, Tab 1 at 15; see Phillips v. Department of the Interior,
95 M.S.P.R. 21, ¶ 17 (2003), aff’d, 131 F. App’x 709 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This is
especially true when, as here, the agency has designated the table as a “guide to
discipline” and allows “[d]eviations” for matters such as when the misconduct is
“especially serious.”     RAF, Tab 2 at 26; see Phillips, 95 M.S.P.R. 21, ¶ 17
(concluding that it was within a deciding official’s discretion to apply the listed
misconduct that most nearly resembled the circumstances of the appellant’s case
given that the agency described the table of penalties as a “[g]uide” and “general
framework within which supervisors may exercise sound judgment in dealing
with the particular circumstances”).
      The    administrative   judge    found   that   the   deciding   official   made
an independent decision to remove the appellant. ID at 11. She acknowledged
that the deciding official stated that the penalty of removal was too severe in
an initial email to an agency Human Resources Officer approximately 3 weeks
before he issued the removal decision.         Id.; RAF, Tab 2 at 24.       However,
she credited the deciding official’s testimony that he prematurely expressed that
opinion before reviewing the Douglas factors and that he concluded that removal
was appropriate after conducting that analysis. ID at 11; HT at 51 (testimony of
the deciding official).
      On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in
crediting the deciding official’s testimony because he testified at one point that
he could not consider the appellant’s intent behind the email but, according to the
appellant, contradicted himself when he later testified that he considered the word
“traitor” to signify a lack of trust. PFR File, Tab 1 at 12. He argues that the
deciding official’s “contradictory, noncommittal responses” draw his credibility
into question. Id. The Board must give “special deference” to an administrative
                                                                                     15

judge’s demeanor-based credibility determinations, “[e]ven if demeanor is not
explicitly discussed.” Purifoy v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 838 F.3d 1367,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
       Here, the appellant has not provided a sufficiently sound reason to overturn
the administrative judge’s credibility finding, and we discern none. ID at 11; see
Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding
that the Board may overturn an administrative judge’s demeanor-based credibility
findings only when it has “sufficiently sound” reasons for doing so).
The deciding official testified that he could not know whether the appellant
intended the email as a threat and because he “could only consider what was sent
in that email.” HT at 58 (testimony of the deciding official). He also testified
that by using the word “traitor” in the appellant’s email he “signifie[d] some lack
of trust” in his coworkers. HT at 62 (testimony of the deciding official). We do
not perceive these statements to be inconsistent. The deciding official could have
concluded that the appellant lacked trust in his coworkers because he called his
coworkers traitors in the email itself, while at the same time being unable to
further determine the appellant’s intent. The deciding official’s testimony that
he did not consider whether the appellant’s actions were malicious supports our
interpretation.   HT at 58-59 (testimony of the deciding official).           Therefore,
we defer to the administrative judge’s decision to credit the deciding official’s
testimony.
       The appellant has not identified any mitigating factors that the deciding
official failed to consider.       PFR File, Tab 1.     As the administrative judge
recognized, the deciding official considered that “the appellant had no prior
disciplinary actions, and had 17 years of successful service with the government.”
ID at 10; IAF, Tab 7 at 21.           Further, the deciding official considered the
appellant’s    expressed        remorse   and   additional   “significant     mitigating
circumstances,” including “[a]lcohol abuse[, the] anniversary of [his] spouse’s
death[,] . . . [and] stress.”    ID at 10-11; IAF, Tab 7 at 22-23.          Nonetheless,
                                                                                     16

the administrative   judge   explained    that   the   deciding   official   reasonably
determined that aggravating factors outweighed those mitigating factors.
ID at 11; IAF, Tab 7 at 23.      We see no reason to disturb these well -reasoned
findings. McCarty v. Department of the Navy, 72 M.S.P.R. 201, 202-03, 205, 207
(1996) (determining that an administrative judge erred in mitigating the removal
to a lesser penalty when an appellant with prior discipline was charged with
making a statement to a coworker that resulted in anxiety and disruption in the
workplace, notwithstanding the appellant’s 15 1/2 years of satisfactory service),
aff’d per curiam, 114 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Tate v. Department of Defense,
57 M.S.P.R. 180, 189-91 (1993) (finding the penalty of removal was reasonable
for the sustained charges of threatening a supervisor and absence without leave
even though they were the appellant’s first offenses in 24 years of service).
      Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision as modified above.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 8
      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

8
  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.
                                                                                      17

within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition   to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
                                                                                 18

      (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:
                                                                                     19

                            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. 9   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).

9
   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.
                                                                                20

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