Court Opinion

ID: 9894321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 15:01:11.154753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:37.706178
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1749   Document: 21     Page: 1    Filed: 11/01/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                      VINH PHAN,
                        Petitioner

                            v.

      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
                  SERVICES,
                   Respondent
             ______________________

                       2022-1749
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DE-1221-21-0252-W-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: November 1, 2023
                 ______________________

    VINH PHAN, Shawnee, KS, pro se.

     LAURA OFFENBACHER ARADI, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
 PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

    Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21      Page: 2    Filed: 11/01/2023

 2                                                PHAN v. HHS

          Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.
     Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
 PER CURIAM.
      Vinh Phan appeals from a decision of the Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board (“Board”) denying a request for re-
 lief in an Individual Right of Action appeal that asserted
 retaliatory agency action for alleged whistleblowing activ-
 ity. Phan v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2022 WL
 509255 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 14, 2022) (“Decision”), R.A. 6–33. 1
    For the following reasons, we affirm in part and vacate
 and remand in part.
                        BACKGROUND
     In 2003, Phan began working as a chemist in the Kan-
 sas City District Laboratory (“KCL”) of the Food and Drug
 Administration (“FDA”), a division of the Department of
 Health and Human Services. R.A. 45. Over the years,
 Phan rose to a GS-1320-12 Step 8 position. Id. In March
 2020, Phan applied for a promotion to a GS-13 Team Lead
 position after learning that four such positions had become
 available. Id. In July 2020, KCL announced the four indi-
 viduals to be promoted. Id. Phan was not one of them. Id.
      In a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”),
 Phan asserted that KCL retaliated against him for whis-
 tleblowing activity in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).
 R.A. 45, 49−52. The complaint alleges whistleblowing ac-
 tivity relating to a letter, sent by another chemist at KCL,
 Linwood Daughtry II, to a U.S. Senator. Id. at 45−46. The
 half-page letter listed “concerns of [Daughtry] as well as
 coworkers that have yet to be addressed by upper manage-
 ment.” Id. at 43. In particular, it listed:

     1   “R.A.” refers to the appendix filed with Respond-
 ent’s brief.
Case: 22-1749     Document: 21      Page: 3    Filed: 11/01/2023

 PHAN v. HHS                                                 3

  •       Agency’s Diversity and EEO Policy violation
  •       Hiring and Promotion of Qualified Personnel
  •       Awards and Performance Management Appraisal
          Program
  •       Mismanagement of taxpayer’s monies
 R.A. 43. The letter included no further details on those four
 areas of alleged concern. Phan and six other coworkers co-
 signed Daughtry’s letter, id. at 43−44, which was eventu-
 ally forwarded to various supervisors at KCL as well as up-
 per management at the FDA.
     The FDA began an investigation into KCL employment
 practices in 2019 following the letter. As part of that in-
 vestigation, Phan alleges the signatories of the letter met
 face-to-face with FDA investigators on March 7, 2019. Ap-
 pellant’s Br. at 3; see P.A. 42–44. 2 Phan sent an email on
 March 8, 2019, to FDA investigators and the FDA Associ-
 ate Commissioner of Regulatory Affairs. P.A. 46–47. On
 July 17, 2019, Phan provided an affidavit. P.A. 49–54.
     In his complaint to OSC, Phan asserted that the “only
 explanation for [his] non-selection [for the Team Lead po-
 sition] is that the interviewers colluded to downgrade [his]
 interviewing score and ranking . . . [to] eliminate [him]
 from selection in retaliation for whistle blowing activities.”
 R.A. 51. In addition to being denied the Team Lead promo-
 tion, Phan alleged further retaliation in the form of a pro-
 posal by KCL management to transfer him to a new
 research group, as well as a denial of a Quality Step In-
 crease. Id. at 47−49. Notably, Phan was never transferred,
 as he asked not to be, and that preference to not be trans-
 ferred was honored. Decision at 13 (noting that Phan’s su-
 pervisor purportedly offered Phan the opportunity to
 switch research groups because the supervisor believed

      2   “P.A.” refers to the appendix filed with Petitioner’s
 brief.
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21      Page: 4    Filed: 11/01/2023

 4                                                PHAN v. HHS

 that Phan “was the most capable person under [his] super-
 vision”). Similarly, although Phan did not receive a Qual-
 ity Step Increase, he was awarded a cash bonus and time-
 off award in exchange for an outstanding work perfor-
 mance. Id. at 14.
     Phan then filed an Individual Right of Action appeal
 under the Whistleblower Protection Act as amended by the
 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Decision at
 1−2. In her initial decision, the administrative judge, with-
 out a hearing, found that Phan did not meet his burden of
 showing that he made protected disclosures or engaged in
 protected activity. Id. at 17−19. That decision became the
 Board’s final decision on March 21, 2022. Id. at 20; see 5
 C.F.R. § 1201.113. Phan appealed. We have jurisdiction
 under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
      Phan contends that the Board erred in holding that he
 failed to establish that he engaged in a protected disclosure
 under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) by co-signing Daughtry’s letter.
 The Board concluded, and we agree, that the letter did not
 constitute a protected disclosure because it only stated gen-
 eral concerns rather than substantive details. “A party
 cannot establish jurisdiction through general assertions,
 but must provide substantive details.” Young v. Merit Sys.
 Prot. Bd., 961 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Johnston v.
 Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
 (“[V]ague, conclusory[,] or facially insufficient allegations
 of government wrongdoing . . . fail to provide an adequate
 jurisdictional predicate under the [Whistleblower Protec-
 tion Act].”).
     Phan next contends that the Board “failed to take into
 account the fact that signatories discussed the bullet points
 of the letter (and more) in detail in a face-to-face meeting
 with” FDA investigators. Appellant’s Br. at 3. He further
 contends that an email sent to two FDA investigators as
 well as the FDA Associate Commissioner of Regulatory
Case: 22-1749     Document: 21     Page: 5    Filed: 11/01/2023

 PHAN v. HHS                                                 5

 Affairs was a “detail[ed] disclosure.” Id. And he makes the
 same assertion regarding an affidavit he submitted during
 that internal investigation. Id.
     The Board analyzed Phan’s participation in the FDA’s
 investigation under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9). Protected activ-
 ity under § 2302(b)(9) includes:
     (A) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or griev-
     ance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation—
         (i) with regard to remedying a violation of
         paragraph (8); or
         (ii) other than with regard to remedying a
         violation of paragraph (8);
     (B) testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting
     any individual in the exercise of any right referred
     to in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
     (C) cooperating with or disclosing information to
     the Inspector General (or any other component re-
     sponsible for internal investigation or review) of
     an agency, or the Special Counsel, in accordance
     with applicable provisions of law; or
     (D) refusing to obey an order that would require the
     individual to violate a law, rule, or regulation[.]
 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9) (emphasis added).
      A previous version of § 2302(b)(9)(C) defined its pro-
 tected activity only as “cooperating with or disclosing infor-
 mation to the Inspector General of an agency, or the
 Special Counsel, in accordance with applicable provisions
 of law.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(C) (2016). In 2017, however,
 Congress added the “or any other component responsible
 for internal investigation or review” parenthetical (empha-
 sized above) in the National Defense Authorization Act for
 Fiscal Year 2018 (“NDAA”), Pub. L. No. 115-91, sec.
 1097(c)(1)(A), 131 Stat. 1283, 1618.
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21      Page: 6    Filed: 11/01/2023

 6                                                PHAN v. HHS

     The Board’s description of § 2302(b)(9) closely tracked
 the language of the statute, but it omitted the “or any other
 component responsible for internal investigation or review”
 parenthetical in subsection (b)(9)(C) added in the NDAA.
 Decision at 8–9. The government’s appellate brief likewise
 omits the parenthetical in subsection (b)(9)(C) when set-
 ting forth the provisions of § 2302(b)(9). Appellee’s Br. at
 16. Because it appears that both the Board and the gov-
 ernment may have miscited the statute or otherwise over-
 looked this parenthetical, and because, on its face, this
 parenthetical could apply in this case, we think a remand
 is appropriate for the Board to consider what (if any) im-
 pact this portion of the statute has on Phan’s case.
      In this appeal, the government’s primary argument
 concerning Phan’s investigation-related activity is that he
 failed to exhaust his remedies under 5 U.S.C.
 § 1214(a)(3)—i.e., he failed to seek relief for this activity
 from the OSC before he sought corrective action for it from
 the Board. Appellee’s Br. at 13, 16. The Board, in address-
 ing this activity under § 2302(b)(9), does not appear to have
 considered the exhaustion requirement. 3 And we cannot
 discern whether the government raised this particular ex-
 haustion issue before the Board. On remand, the Board
 should consider whether to address this exhaustion issue
 and, if the answer is yes, should decide it.

     3    The administrative judge stated at one point that
 “[t]here is no dispute, and I find, that the appellant ex-
 hausted the corrective action process with the OSC.” Deci-
 sion at 5. Later, however, the administrative judge stated:
 “The appellant exhausted one disclosure with OSC: that in
 late October 2018, he was a signatory on a joint letter sent
 to a Senator and agency management.” Decision at 17. The
 administrative judge made the latter statement in discuss-
 ing § 2302(b)(8), then addressed the investigation-related
 activity under § 2302(b)(9) without mentioning exhaustion.
Case: 22-1749   Document: 21      Page: 7   Filed: 11/01/2023

 PHAN v. HHS                                              7

                       CONCLUSION
      We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
 AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED
                 IN PART
                          COSTS
 No costs.
Case: 22-1749     Document: 21     Page: 8    Filed: 11/01/2023

          NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                        VINH PHAN,
                          Petitioner

                              v.

         DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
                     SERVICES,
                      Respondent
                ______________________

                         2022-1749
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DE-1221-21-0252-W-1.
                 ______________________

 NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
     On this appeal from the Merit Systems Protection
 Board 1 (MSPB or “Board”) the Board did not decide the
 only issue that was appealed to it (the issue of retaliation),
 but instead decided a subject that was not disputed by ei-
 ther party (whether there was a whistleblowing disclo-
 sure). The panel majority accepts this flawed procedure. I

     1  Phan v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 2022 WL
 509255 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 14, 2022) (“Board Op.”).
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21      Page: 9    Filed: 11/01/2023

 2                                                PHAN v. HHS

 respectfully dissent, for sound administrative practice re-
 quires that “[t]he grounds upon which an administrative
 order must be judged are those upon which the record dis-
 closes that its action was based.” Securities & Exch.
 Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943). The ac-
 tion before the agency and the Office of Special Counsel
 was based solely on Mr. Phan’s assertion of retaliation.
      In addition, the Board applied incorrect law in reaching
 its decision. The government does not defend the Board’s
 substantive and procedural errors and relies solely on its
 challenge to the MSPB’s jurisdiction. Although the panel
 majority recognizes that the Board’s disposition is flawed,
 these errors of law and procedure must also be corrected.
 More is required of appellate review, than a general re-
 mand to check a parenthetical.
                              A
     The only issue before the agency and the OSC
     was retaliation
      The MSPB disposed of the appeal by deciding that Mr.
 Phan was not a whistleblower. That Mr. Phan made pro-
 tected disclosures was not disputed by any party and not
 challenged before the Board. However, the Board held that
 “it is unnecessary to address contributing factor or whether
 the agency would have taken the same actions anyway,”
 Board Op. at 19, and held that Mr. Phan was not a whis-
 tleblower.
     Administrative practice requires that disputed issues
 are presented to the agency. See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v.
 Exp.–Imp. Bank of the U.S., 85 F. Supp. 3d 387 (D.D.C.
 2015):
     [A] fundamental rule of administrative law is that
     a court reviewing an agency’s decision must judge
     the propriety of the agency action solely by the
     grounds invoked by the agency. Typically, the
     grounds reviewed will appear in the administrative
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21      Page: 10     Filed: 11/01/2023

 PHAN v. HHS                                                  3

     record, and judicial review therefore is to be based
     on the full administrative record that was before
     the agency at the time it made its decision.
 Id. at 402 (citations, alterations, and quotation marks
 omitted).
      The proceedings at the agency and the Office of Special
 Counsel (OSC) were on the premise that Mr. Phan was a
 whistleblower. Mr. Phan argued only retaliation during
 the FDA investigation and, as the Board stated, “On Octo-
 ber 21, 2019, the Office of Human Capital Management no-
 tified El-Demerdash that it has closed out its investigation
 and found that the allegations were unsubstantiated.”
 Board Op. at 12–13. However, instead of resolving the
 question of retaliation, the Board held that Mr. Phan was
 not a whistleblower based on the absence of details in the
 initial letter to FDA management and a Senator (“the 2018
 Letter”) finding that it did not contain details of the alleged
 “fraud, waste, and abuse.” My colleagues ignore these er-
 rors of law and procedure.
                               B
     The evidence related to retaliation was devel-
     oped in the agency record
     At the OSC, the government did not suggest that Mr.
 Phan had not engaged in whistleblowing activity. The OSC
 proceeding and closure letter were premised on agency ac-
 ceptance that such activity had occurred.
     In contrast with the silence of the record on the ques-
 tion of whistleblowing, the record was well developed with
 respect to the question of retaliation. The government pro-
 vided evidence and argument to support its position that
 the same actions would have been taken if Mr. Phan had
 not made protected disclosures. See Keys v. Dep’t of Hous.
 & Urb. Dev., 2022 WL 703891, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“If
 [the claimant] made those showings, the agency neverthe-
 less could prevail in the IRA appeal by showing, by clear
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21     Page: 11     Filed: 11/01/2023

 4                                                PHAN v. HHS

 and convincing evidence, that it would have reassigned
 [the claimant] even in the absence of the protected disclo-
 sure.”).
    Mr. Phan focused on three employment actions that he
 argued were retaliatory:
     1. The proposed transfer to the metals group
         This occurred in the spring of 2019, when Mr. Ad-
         ams, Mr. Phan’s first-line supervisor (who had seen
         the 2018 Letter), suggested to Mr. Phan that he
         transfer from the pesticides group to the metals
         group. Mr. Phan states that the proposed transfer
         would have been disadvantageous to his career and
         was retaliatory. Mr. Adams stated that the metals
         group needed analysts and he believed Mr. Phan
         “was the most capable person under my supervi-
         sion.” Board Op. at 13. Mr. Phan declined to move
         to the metals group. He argued to the Board, and
         repeats on this appeal, that the proposed transfer
         was retaliatory for his whistleblowing.
     2. Non-selection for a Team Lead Promotion
         Mr. Phan and eleven other KCL employees applied
         for a promotion to one of four Team Lead positions.
         Mr. Phan was ranked 6th and thus not selected, alt-
         hough he did receive a cash award and time off. He
         states that “[f]inal QSI selection was based on the
         ranking that El-Demerdash, Cooper and Rice pre-
         pared,” all of whom had seen the 2018 Letter. Phan
         Br. Continuation P.7. Mr. Phan stated that “[m]y
         technical competency has been consistently rated
         ‘Exceptional’ by my former pesticides supervi-
         sor . . . and current pesticides supervisor,” and that
         the persons selected had inferior qualifications or
         less experience.         Phan OSC Compl. 5–6
         (HHSAppx49–50). Mr. Phan argues that his
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21     Page: 12   Filed: 11/01/2023

 PHAN v. HHS                                               5

         whistleblowing was a contributing factor in his
         non-selection. Board Op. at 14–15.
     3. Denial of a Quality Step Increase
         While Mr. Phan’s supervisor suggested that he be
         transferred during a department reorganization
         because he “was the most capable person under
         [his] supervision,” he was not given a Quality Step
         Increase in his annual performance evaluation.
         Board Op. at 13. On this appeal, Mr. Phan again
         argues that his whistleblowing was a contributing
         factor to this omission.
     Upon the occurrence of the various personnel actions,
 Mr. Phan filed a complaint with the OSC in conformity
 with 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(1)(A). Id. (“The Special Counsel
 shall receive any allegation of a prohibited personnel prac-
 tice and shall investigate the allegation to the extent nec-
 essary to determine whether there are reasonable grounds
 to believe that a prohibited personnel practice has oc-
 curred, exists, or is to be taken.”). The Board summarized
 the OSC complaint:
     [T]he appellant complained to OSC that the agency
     retaliated against him based on the disclosures in
     the joint letter with respect to the following: (1)
     proposing to transfer him to another group; (2)
     denying him a Quality Step Increase; and (3) not
     selecting him for a promotion to a GS-13 Team
     Lead position.
 Board Op. at 2. The OSC closed Mr. Phan’s complaint on
 August 28, 2020. Id. at 5.
     Mr. Phan then appealed to the Board, as provided by 5
 U.S.C. § 1221 (Individual Right of Action in Certain Re-
 prisal Cases). The Board summarized the evidence and ar-
 gument concerning retaliation, but held that it need not
 decide retaliation because Mr. Phan was not a whistle-
 blower. The Board stated that the four bullet-points in the
Case: 22-1749     Document: 21      Page: 13     Filed: 11/01/2023

 6                                                  PHAN v. HHS

 2018 Letter (see infra) were insufficiently detailed to con-
 stitute whistleblowing, and that Mr. Phan’s disclosures
 during the ensuing FDA investigation could not be consid-
 ered. On this reasoning, the Board held that “the appellant
 did not meet his burden of showing that he made protected
 disclosures or engaged in protected activity, so I do not
 evaluate contributing factor or the agency’s reasons for its
 actions.” Board Op. at 4.
     The Board’s erroneous view of protected disclosures
 should be corrected, lest it add confusion to this body of law.
 The Board’s ruling, that only the initial disclosure in the
 2018 Letter can be considered, is not the law. The ensuing
 disclosures to the FDA’s investigators can and must be con-
 sidered along with the initial disclosure. My colleagues err
 in remaining silent on this significant Board error.
     The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) in 5 U.S.C.
 § 2302 states the basic whistleblower protections:
     § 2302 Prohibited personnel practices. [Any em-
     ployee shall not] take or fail to take . . . a personnel
     action with respect to any employee or applicant for
     employment because of—
                              ***
     (b)(8)(A) any disclosure of information by an em-
     ployee or applicant which the employee or appli-
     cant reasonably believes evidences—
         (i) any violation of any law, rule, or regula-
         tion, or
         (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of
         funds, an abuse of authority, or a substan-
         tial and specific danger to public health or
         safety,
     if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by
     law and if such information is not specifically re-
     quired by Executive order to be kept secret in the
Case: 22-1749     Document: 21          Page: 14   Filed: 11/01/2023

 PHAN v. HHS                                                    7

     interest of national defense or the conduct of for-
     eign affairs;
     (B) any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the
     Inspector General of an agency or another em-
     ployee designated by the head of the agency to re-
     ceive such disclosures, of information which the
     employee or applicant reasonably believes evi-
     dences—
         (i) any violation (other than a violation of
         this section) of any law, rule, or regulation,
         or
         (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of
         funds, an abuse of authority, or a substan-
         tial and specific danger to public health or
         safety; or
     (C) any disclosure to Congress . . . of information
     described in subparagraph (B) that is—
         (i) not classified; or
         (ii) if classified—
                                  ***
 The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)
 enacted in 2012, and as amended in 2017, states protection
 for:
     (A) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or griev-
     ance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation—
         (i) with regard to remedying a violation of
         paragraph (8); or
         (ii) other than with regard to remedying a
         violation of paragraph (8);
     (B) testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting
     any individual in the exercise of any right referred
     to in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
Case: 22-1749     Document: 21     Page: 15   Filed: 11/01/2023

 8                                               PHAN v. HHS

       (C) cooperating with or disclosing information to
       the Inspector General (or any other component re-
       sponsible for internal investigation or review) of
       an agency, or the Special Counsel, in accordance
       with applicable provisions of law; or
                             ***
 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A). The panel majority holds that the
 Board’s omission of the parenthetical in clause (C) above
 warrants remand, Maj. Op. at 6, although we are not in-
 formed of the relevance of this parenthetical to either Mr.
 Phan’s whistleblowing or his assertions of retaliation.
                               C
     There is no issue that Mr. Phan is a whistleblower
      Mr. Phan was one of several signatories to the 2018
 Letter, which requested “answers to . . . concerns of mine
 as well as coworkers that have yet to be addressed by upper
 management. I am writing to your office to get a resolution
 for these issues.” PhanAppx33. The 2018 Letter listed four
 areas of concern, in bullet-point format:
       •   Agency’s diversity and EEO policy violation
       •   Hiring and promotion of qualified personnel
       •   Awards and performance management ap-
           praisal program
       •   Mismanagement of taxpayer’s monies.
 Board Op. at 10. The MSPB observed: “The letter did not
 provide any additional information about the bullet-point
 concerns but provided contact information for the signato-
 ries.” Id. However, it is not disputed that the information
 was sufficient to launch an investigation by FDA manage-
 ment, during which additional support for the allegations
 was provided. Mr. Phan met with Glenda Barfell, Director
 of the Office of Management, and her colleague Sean
 Linder, investigators sent to KCL from FDA headquarters.
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21     Page: 16    Filed: 11/01/2023

 PHAN v. HHS                                                 9

 The Board recognized that the “appellant sent additional
 materials to Barfell and Linder to explain his concerns.” Id.
     The record contains correspondence between Mr. Phan
 and the investigators; an email from Mr. Phan states:
 “Thank you for spending time to listen to our concerns/is-
 sues,” and adds details “to present another evident [sic] to
 show KCL’s continuing deceptive and manipulative hiring
 practices and loopholes in our HR.” PhanAppx46–47. The
 Board summarized an affidavit Mr. Phan submitted to the
 investigators, as follows:
     In his affidavit, the appellant complained that El-
     Demerdash retaliated against him for his “multiple
     complaints with upper FDA management, Office of
     Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board,
     Department of Labor, joined letters to several
     members of Congress and EEO for equal oppor-
     tunity (racial, veteran’s preference, etc.), biased
     promotion and hiring practices, prohibited person-
     nel practices, favoritism, inefficient use of govern-
     ment’s resources (equipment and manpower),
     whistleblower retaliation.” He further complained
     about favoritism, “obscured hiring and promotion
     practices,” and a hostile work environment.
 Board Op. at 12–13 (citations omitted).
      Despite recognizing these disclosures, the Board held
 that they cannot be considered as providing details of whis-
 tleblowing. The Board held that only Mr. Phan’s general
 disclosures in the 2018 Letter can be considered; the Board
 stated that this is required by Graves v. Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs, 123 M.S.P.R. 434, 440–44 (2016). However,
 Graves did not hold that subsequent disclosures to investi-
 gators are not protected disclosures. In Graves the MSPB
 held that an employee’s participation in an internal
 agency-initiated investigation of potential research mis-
 conduct was not an act of whistleblowing because such ac-
 tivity is not within the classes described in 5 U.S.C.
Case: 22-1749    Document: 21     Page: 17    Filed: 11/01/2023

 10                                               PHAN v. HHS

 § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). See 123 M.S.P.R. at 443
 (“There is no indication in the record or in VA Directive
 0700 suggesting that an administrative investigation con-
 stitutes an initial step by an employee.”). Graves does not
 require that information provided during follow-up inves-
 tigation of an initial disclosure must be ignored in deter-
 mining whether the employee made a protected disclosure.
     The Board also held that since the FDA’s investigation
 of Mr. Phan’s disclosures was done “voluntarily,” Mr.
 Phan’s disclosures to the investigators do not count as pro-
 tected whistleblowing. Board Op. at 19. There is no au-
 thority in the rules of evidence or in the whistleblower
 statutes to hold that disclosures to investigators during
 “voluntary” inquiries cannot be included as protected dis-
 closures.
     As recited in Chenery, “[a]n administrative order can-
 not be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency
 acted in exercising its powers were those upon which its
 action can be sustained.” Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95. This is
 a rule of the administrative state; there is no exception for
 whistleblower actions. It was not disputed, by the FDA or
 the OSC, that Mr. Phan was a whistleblower; the only issue
 before the Board was retaliation. My colleagues, by their
 silence, appear to endorse these procedural and substan-
 tive errors.
                        CONCLUSION
     The Board did not decide the only question on appeal,
 that of retaliation. My colleagues do not correct the Board’s
 errors of procedural and substantive law. I respectfully
 dissent.