Court Opinion

ID: 9945343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 19:00:21.425666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:27.184220
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

NATHAN S. DUENAS,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         SF-0752-18-0215-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: February 26, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Paul E. Carreras , Esquire, Roseville, California, for the appellant.

      Christine J. Yen , Stockton, California, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed his removal. On petition for review, the appellant argues that the agency
failed to prove the charge of Lack of Candor because the circumstances do not
reflect that he intended to deceive the agency on his 2015 Electronic
Questionnaire for National Security Positions, SF-86. He reasserts his claim that
the agency committed a prohibited personnel practice under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

(10). Finally, he disputes the administrative judge’s weighing of the Douglas
factors and argues that she abused her discretion when she denied several of his
witnesses. Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981)
(providing a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to penalty determinations and
observing that the Board’s review of an agency-imposed penalty is essentially to
assure that the agency conscientiously considered the relevant factors and struck a
responsible balance within tolerable limits of reasonableness ).      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 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 as to the reason for denying the appellant’s prohibited
personnel practice claim and to incorporate the Board’s findings in its decision in
Singh v. U.S. Postal Service, 2022 MSPB 15, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
      The appellant alleged below and on review that the agency violated
5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10) by discriminating against him based on his July 2017
arrest. Petition for Review File, Tab 4 at 13; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 14
at 8-9. He argued that this violated the prohibition against agency discrimination
for non-performance related conduct in section 2302(b)(10). The administrative
judge denied this claim because the appellant did not claim that he engaged in
whistleblowing activity. IAF, Tab 19, Initial Decision (ID) at 12. This was error
                                                                                     3

because the statute does not require such allegations. Nevertheless, because we
agree with the administrative judge’s finding of a nexus between the appellant’s
misconduct and the efficiency of the service, that determination negates his
section 2302(b)(10) claim. See Middleton v. Department of Justice, 23 M.S.P.R.
223, 228 (1984) (finding that a clear and specific finding of nexus negates a claim
under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10)), aff’d, 776 F.2d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Table). To
the extent that the administrative judge erred in requiring the appellant to allege
retaliation for whistleblowing, an adjudicatory error such as this one that is not
prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an
initial decision. Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282
(1984).
      In   addressing    the   appellant’s   claim   of   disparate   penalties,   the
administrative judge cited Lewis v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R.
657, ¶ 15 (2010), for the proposition that an appellant alleging disparate treatment
must show that there is enough similarity between both the nature of the
misconduct and other relevant factors to lead a reasonable person to conclude that
the agency treated similarly situated employees differently but that the Board will
not have hard and fast rules regarding the “outcome determinative” nature of
those factors. ID at 17-19. In the Board’s recent decision in Singh, 2022 MSPB
15, ¶ 14, the Board overruled Lewis to the extent it is contrary to Facer v.
Department of the Air Force, 836 F.2d 535, 539 (Fed. Cir. 1988), in which the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the proper inquiry is
whether the agency knowingly treated employees “differently in a way not
justified by the facts, and intentionally for reasons other than the efficiency of the
service.” The Board also reaffirmed the standard set forth in Douglas, 5 M.S.P.R.
at 305, which limits similarly situated employees to those who engaged in the
same or similar offenses, Singh, 2022 MSPB 15, ¶ 17. Specifically, the Board
determined that the universe of potential comparators will vary from case to case,
but it should be limited to those employees whose misconduct and/or other
                                                                                      4

circumstances closely resemble those of the appellant. Id., ¶ 13. In addition, the
Board reiterated that consistency of the penalty with those imposed on other
employees for the same or similar offenses is only one of many factors to be
considered in determining an appropriate penalty and is not necessarily outcome
determinative. Id., ¶ 18. For the same reasons the administrative judge found the
appellant did not meet his burden under Lewis, ID at 18-19, we conclude he did
not meet his burden under the standard set forth in Singh.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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
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.

2
  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.
                                                                                         5

      (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.

      (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
                                                                                  6

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:
                         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:
                                                                                      7

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

3
   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.
                                                                                8

      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.