Court Opinion

ID: 9396284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 07:00:12.559582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.774131
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KEISHA BELLE,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  SF-0752-17-0280-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                    DATE: May 19, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Neil C. Bonney, Esquire, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for the appellant.

           Larry Pruitt, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained the appellant’s removal. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT
     the appellant’s petition for review.     We REVERSE the portion of the initial
     decision that sustained the removal, and we AFFIRM the administrative judge’s

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     findings on the appellant’s affirmative defense.           The removal action is NOT
     SUSTAINED.

                                         BACKGROUND
¶2         Effective May 29, 2016, the appellant was reassigned from her position as a
     Child and Youth Programs Training and Curriculum Specialist in Japan to the
     same position in Alaska as a resolution of her equal employment opportunity
     (EEO) case against agency officials in Japan. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6
     at 11, Tab 22, Hearing Compact Disc (HCD) at 09:00-11:00 (testimony of
     Civilian Personnel Officer, Joint Base Elmerdorf-Richardson (CPO-JBER)). 2 The
     appellant reported for duty in Alaska on June 13, 2016, at which time she
     completed a statement of conviction form. IAF, Tab 5 at 4, Tab 19 at 62. That
     form required her to disclose any arrests, charges, or convictions for a crime
     involving a minor, drugs, or alcohol. IAF, Tab 5 at 4. Although the form advised
     that the agency “is required to request a State and Criminal History Repository
     Check as a condition of employment,” there is no indication that the agency
     completed a new background investigation or suitability adjudication for the
     appellant after her reassignment.           IAF, Tab 5 at 4; HCD at 34:00-35:00
     (testimony of CPO-JBER).
¶3         On August 4, 2016, the appellant’s first-line supervisor notified the
     appellant, and the rest of her team, that the a gency was replacing the “simpler”
     statement of conviction form with the Department of Defense (DD) Form 2981,
     Basic Criminal History and Statement of Admission. 3 IAF, Tab 4 at 34. The

     2
       According to the appellant’s deposition testimony, she was reassigned from Japan to
     Fort Myer, where she was terminated from her position for “[l]ying on [her] [F]ederal
     application.” IAF, Tab 19 at 61. However, due to a successful EEO case regarding her
     employment in Japan, the agency agreed to reassign her to Alaska. HCD at 10:00-18:00
     (testimony of CPO-JBER).
     3
      The statute authorizing DD Form 2981 provides that “[a]ny conviction for a sex crim e,
     an offense involving a child victim, . . . a drug felony, . . . [or] a crime other than a sex
                                                                                               3

     appellant’s first- and second-line supervisors explained to her that she was
     required to complete the form, instructed her to complete it, and warned her that
     failure to do so may negatively impact her background check.                 Id. at 30-34.
     However, the appellant refused. Id. at 31. On September 6, 2016, the appellant’s
     second-line supervisor detailed her from her “current position working with and
     around children” because of her failure to complete the form. Id. at 30.
¶4         On November 30, 2016, the appellant’s first-line supervisor proposed the
     appellant’s removal based on a single charge of failure to maintain a condition of
     employment. Id. at 12, 28. The charge was based on her refusal to complete a
     DD Form 2981. Id. at 28. The specification in support of the charge and the
     background information explained that she was required to meet the background
     check requirements at all times, as outlined in Department of Defense Instruction
     1402.05, Enclosure 3, and Air Force Instruction 34-144, chapter 9.6 and 9.6.5,
     and her failure to complete a DD Form 2981 prevented her from satisfying that
     requirement. Id. The deciding official sustained the charge, as specified, and
     removed the appellant, effective March 3, 2017. Id. at 12-14.
¶5         The appellant filed this appeal of her removal, in which she disputed the
     agency’s charge. IAF, Tab 1 at 6. She argued that a background check was the
     condition of her employment, whereas completing a DD Form 2981 was not.
     IAF, Tab 18 at 5.        She claimed that, to fail the actual condition of her
     employment, the agency needed to issue her a negative background check or a
     negative suitability determination, neither of which occurred . Id. She further
     argued that she was not required to complete a DD Form 2981 because it was a
     voluntary form used for “pre-employment screening,” and she already was
     employed by the agency. Id. She alleged that her removal was in retaliation for
     her prior EEO activity and claimed that the penalty of removal was unreas onable.
     IAF, Tab 1 at 6.

     crime . . . if it bears on an individual’s fitness to have responsibility for the safety and
     well-being of children” is relevant to a criminal history check. 34 U.S.C. § 20351(c).
                                                                                             4

¶6         After holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the administrative judge
     issued an initial decision affirming her removal. IAF, Tab 23, Initial Decision
     (ID) at 1, 17. In sustaining the agency’s charge of failure to maintain a condition
     of employment, the administrative judge found that a completed DD Form 2981
     was a condition of the appellant’s employment because it was a necessary part of
     the background check process. ID at 10-11. She further found that the appellant
     failed to meet that condition, even though she was on notice of the consequences
     of that failure and had a reasonable opportunity to comply. ID at 11 -12. The
     administrative judge also concluded that the appellant did not prove her EEO
     reprisal affirmative defense. ID at 12-15. Finally, the administrative judge found
     that there was a nexus between the sustained charge and the efficiency of the
     service and that the penalty of removal was within the bounds of reasonableness.
     ID at 12, 16.
¶7         The appellant has filed a petition for review challenging the administrative
     judge’s findings that the agency proved its charge. 4 Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1 at 4-10. The agency has filed a response, to which the appellant has
     replied. PFR File, Tabs 3-4.

     4
       The appellant has not challenged the administrative judge’s findings as to her
     affirmative defense. In that regard, the initial decision reflects that the administrative
     judge considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made
     accurate, well-reasoned findings. Accordingly, we do not disturb those findings. See
     Dunn v. Department of the Air Force, 96 M.S.P.R. 166, ¶ 9 (2004) (declining to disturb
     the administrative judge’s factual findings and determination that the agency failed to
     establish two of its specifications because the initial decision reflected that she
     considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned
     conclusions on issues of credibility), aff’d per curiam, 139 F. App’x. 280 (Fed. Cir.
     2005). Furthermore, because the appellant has not challenged the administrative
     judge’s finding that she failed to prove that her prior EEO activity was a motivating
     factor in the agency’s decision to remove her, we do not reach the question of whether
     retaliation was a “but-for” cause of the removal action. See Pridgen v. Office of
     Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 22 (citing Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___,
     140 S. Ct. 1168, 1177-78 (2020)).
                                                                                           5

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶8         To sustain a charge of failure to fulfill a condition of employment, the
     agency must prove that the requirement at issue is a condition of employment and
     that the appellant failed to meet that condition. Gallegos v. Department of the Air
     Force, 121 M.S.P.R. 349, ¶ 6 (2014).        Absent evidence of bad faith or patent
     unfairness, the Board defers to the agency’s requirements that must be fulfilled
     for an individual to be appointed to or to retain her particular position . 5 Id. It is
     undisputed that, as a condition of employment, the appellant was required to meet
     background check requirements at all times.
¶9         We find, contrary to the initial decision, that the appellant’s failure to
     complete a DD Form 2981 did not prevent her from satisfying that condition of
     employment. First, while the appellant’s supervisors did instruct her to fill out
     the form and told her it was “required,” the form itself expressly states that
     completion of the form is “voluntary,” and the Department of Defense’s policy
     similarly states that the form is “voluntary.” IAF, Tab 4 at 40.          It would be
     nonsensical to charge the appellant with failure to meet a condition of
     employment based on her failure to complete a “voluntary” form. 6 If, on the
     other hand, completion of the form was in fact necessary to meet background

     5
       The administrative judge construed the Board’s case law as requiring that the agency
     prove an additional element for a failure to meet a condition of employment charge: “ to
     the extent that her failure to meet the condition was within the agency’s control, the
     appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the condition .” ID at 9. While
     this differs slightly from the Board’s recitation of the elements of this charge as set
     forth in Gallegos, 121 M.S.P.R. 349, ¶ 6, that consideration, and the administrative
     judge’s accompanying analysis, is relevant to determining whether the agency’s
     condition of employment was patently unfair.
     6
       Under the circumstances, the agency might have properly charged the appellant with
     failure to follow supervisory instructions. However, the Board is required to review the
     agency’s decision on an adverse action solely on the grounds invoked by the agency and
     may not substitute what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis. Fargnoli v.
     Department of Commerce, 123 M.S.P.R. 330, ¶ 7 (2016).
                                                                                         6

      check requirements, the agency should have changed the form and its policy to so
      indicate.
¶10         Moreover, the record reflects that there were other components to the
      background check that could have been conducted without the completion of a
      DD Form 2981, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history
      background check, a review of state records, and a fingerprint check. IAF, Tab 5
      at 15.   There is no indication that the agency took these measures or that it
      actually completed a background check or issued a suitability determination
      before removing the appellant. Given the agency’s own failure to complete the
      background check process, it is precluded from charging the appellant with
      failing to meet the background check requirements that were a condition of her
      employment. Accordingly, we do not sustain the removal action.

                                            ORDER
¶11         We ORDER the agency to cancel the removal action and reinstate the
      appellant effective March 3, 2017. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts,
      726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later
      than 20 days after the date of this decision.
¶12         We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back
      pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel
      Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this
      decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s
      efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to
      provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the
      Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, in terest due,
      and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed
      amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.
¶13         We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
      when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
                                                                                      7

      taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
      the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶14        No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
      carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
      with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appel lant
      believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
      should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
      fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
      any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶15        For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
      Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Def ense Finance and
      Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
      necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
      are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
      documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
      Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
      made within the 60-day period set forth above.

                      NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                            YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                           ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
           You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
      fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of
      the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
      regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
      you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
      and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
      You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
      the initial decision on your appeal.
                                                                                      8

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
      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.

      (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).

7
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Boar d 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.
                                                                                        9

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

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

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review     of   cases      involving   a   claim    of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.      5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
                                                                                10

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

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

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant   to   the   Whistleblower    Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
                                                                                     11

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 chal lenge 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 e ither with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 8   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                               U.S. Court of Appeals
                               for the Federal Circuit
                              717 Madison Place, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C. 20439

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

8
   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.
                                                                           12

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.
                                 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
                                           Civilian Pay Operations

                          DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST
The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay
pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following
checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may
substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by
vendor pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay.

☐ 1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the
       specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket
comments as to why the documentation is not applicable:

☐ 2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.

☐ 3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.

☐ 4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s
       until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until
       notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).

☐ 7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the employee
       in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment.
       Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc. Also,
       include record of any unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation,
       CSRS/FERS retirement annuity payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums,
       or severance pay received by the employee upon separation.

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment
they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The
annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave
ceiling will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by
the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information
   describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
       a.   Employee name and social security number.
       b.   Detailed explanation of request.
       c.   Valid agency accounting.
       d.   Authorized signature (Table 63).
       e.   If interest is to be included.
       f.   Check mailing address.
       g.   Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
       h.   Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be
            collected (if applicable).
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
   Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable).
2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to
   return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
   type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave
   to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and
required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum
Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
       a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
       b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
       c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.
If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.