Court Opinion

ID: 9956939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 15:01:02.030388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:01.087654
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ROBERT GABLER,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          DA-0752-21-0146-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 2, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Tyler J. Sroufe , Esquire, and Veronica Harte , Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for
        the appellant.

      Nora E. Hinojosa , Fort Cavazos, Texas, 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
sustained his reduction in grade and pay. 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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. 2         Except as expressly
MODIFIED to clarify that the appellant did not waive his due process claim, we
AFFIRM the initial decision.
      In an appeal of an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, the agency
bears the burden of proving by preponderant evidence that its action was taken
for such cause as would promote the efficiency of the service.         MacDonald v.
Department of the Navy, 4 M.S.P.R. 403, 404 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(1)
(ii). To meet this burden, the agency must prove its charge, establish a nexus
between the charge and the efficiency of the service, and demonstrate that the
penalty imposed was reasonable. Pope v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 F.3d 1144,
1147 (Fed. Cir. 1997).     However, even if the agency carries this burden, the
action may not be sustained if the appellant shows that it was the product of a due
process violation or harmful procedural error.           5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(A);
Stephen v. Department of the Air Force, 47 M.S.P.R. 672, 681 (1991); see
5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(C).

2
  In its response, the agency requests that the Board revoke the extension of time
granted to the appellant to file his petition for review and find it untimely filed.
Petition for Review File, Tab 5 at 4. It alleges that the appellant misrepresented his
need for an extension before the Board. Id. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f), the
Board has the discretion to grant such motions that are filed on or before the date on
which the petition is due. Because the appellant requested an extension of time on
February 22, 2022, and his petition for review was due by March 9, 2022, we discern no
basis to revoke his extension. Thus, the agency’s request is DENIED.
                                                                                    3

      On petition for review, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s
finding that he waived his due process claim because he failed to object to the
issue in the order closing the record.    Petition For Review (PFR) File, Tab 3
at 15-16; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 34, Initial Decision at 4 n.6. Specifically,
he asserts that “[he] did not learn of these due process violations until reading the
[a]gency’s [r]esponse to [the] [c]lose of [r]ecord [o]rder, and as such, could not
have raised this issue prior to his [r]esponse to the [a]gency’s [c]lose of [r]ecord
[b]rief, submitted on July 28, 2021.” PFR File, Tab 3 at 15.
      We acknowledge that the appellant did not object to the absence of this
affirmative defense in the administrative judge’s order closing the record.
However, before the close of the record below, the appellant raised the issue that
the agency presented new evidence in its response to the closing order dated
July 21, 2021.   IAF, Tab 31 at 6-7.       Therefore, as the administrative judge
observed, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.59(c), the appellant must be allowed to
respond to the new evidence submitted by the agency just before the close of the
record. IAF, Tab 21 at 1. We find that he acted with due diligence in raising his
argument at the earliest practicable time under the circumstances; thus, we will
address it on review.
      The essential requirements of procedural due process are prior notice of the
charges and evidence against the employee and a meaningful opportunity to
respond to those charges and evidence.         Cleveland Board of Education v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). Pursuant to Ward v. U.S. Postal Service,
634 F.3d 1274, 1279-80 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 179 F.3d 1368, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 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 decision on the merits of a proposed charge
or the penalty to be imposed. Mathis v. Department of State, 122 M.S.P.R. 507,
¶ 6 (2015).    Therefore, an employee must be given advance notice of any
aggravating factors supporting an enhanced penalty as well as a meaningful
                                                                                      4

opportunity to address whether the level of penalty to be imposed is appropriate.
Ward, 634 F.3d at 1280; Stone, 179 F.3d at 1376.
      The appellant argued below and reasserts on review that the agency
violated his due process rights when the agency “identifie[d] and reference[d]
instances [that were] not included in the [p]roposal [l]etter where [he] allegedly
failed to follow instructions and meet deadlines” and the deciding official
consulted his first-line supervisor prior to issuing the decision letter. PFR File,
Tab 3 at 15-16; IAF, Tab 31 at 6-7. The appellant appears to construe some of
the agency’s statements as an admission that it considered information not
identified in the proposal. 3    PFR File, Tab 3 at 15-16; IAF, Tab 31 at 6-7.
However, there is no indication in the record that the deciding official relied on
any specifications of misconduct not identified in the proposal to change him to a
lower grade. Further, the appellant’s vague assertion that the deciding official
considered ex parte information because he consulted with his first-line
supervisor prior to issuing the decision is unavailing. Therefore, we find that the
appellant has not shown that the agency violated his right to due process. 4
      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the initial decision sustaining the
appellant’s reduction in grade and pay, as modified by this Final Order.

3
  Upon reviewing the record, we believe that the appellant is referring to the agency’s
statements that, amongst other things, it could have added more specifications to the
proposal notice, the events at issue occurred after the appellant served a 14-day
suspension which involved other incidents, and he was fully aware through numerous
verbal and email notices that his conduct was unacceptable. IAF, Tab 29 at 11, 21, 24.
We are not persuaded by the appellant’s purported evidence.
4
  Although the agency’s conduct did not constitute a constitutional violation, the Board
must still decide whether the agency committed a harmful error. See Ward, 634 F.3d
at 1281-83. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(A), the Board will not sustain an agency
decision if the appellant “shows harmful error in the application of the agency’s
procedures in arriving at such decision.” The record does not support a finding that the
agency committed a harmful error.
                                                                                          5

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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).
      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:

5
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                    6

                             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
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
                                                                                  7

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
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
                                                                                      8

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. 6   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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

6
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                        9

      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.