Court Opinion

ID: 9373453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:09.308808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.946108
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                           MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CARLOS J VELAZQUEZ MUNOZ,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        NY-0752-21-0100-I-1

                    v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: August 31, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Carlos J Velazquez Munoz, Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, pro se.

           Byron D. Smalley, Esquire and Davina Minnix, Esquire, Washington, D.C.,
             for the agency.

                                            BEFORE

                                  Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                   Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                    Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                         FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained his 15-day suspension for the charge of conduct unbecoming towards a
     subordinate.        On petition for review, the appellant primarily challenges the
     penalty, requesting that the Board decrease the length of his suspension. Petition

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5. He also repeats his arguments that he did not
     purposefully send the explicit text message from his cell phone , that he was
     remorseful about what had happened, and that he had a strong record both at the
     agency and in the military. Id. at 4-5; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7 at 4-6.
     Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
     circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous f indings 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 t he initial decision
     were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion,
     and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material
     evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due
     diligence, was not available when the record closed.        Title 5 of the Code of
     Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).            After fully
     considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
     established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
     Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
     find the penalty of a 15-day suspension is reasonable for the sustained
     misconduct, without regard to the letter of admonishment improperly considered
     as prior discipline by deciding official, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         On review, the appellant repeats his argument that the agency should have
     treated the misconduct in the present appeal as a first offense, but that he “was
     told several times that the 15 days suspension was due that this was [his] second
     offense.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 4; IAF, Tab 7 at 4. Regarding the penalty, it is
     undisputed that the deciding official considered a letter of admonishment as prior
     discipline that was no longer a matter of record as of the date of the issuance of
                                                                                             3

     the proposed notice of removal and decision letter. 2 IAF, Tab 5 at 17-19, 57; see
     Bolling v. Department of the Air Force, 9 M.S.P.R. 335, 339-40 (1981)
     (explaining the limited scope of the Board’s review of a prior disciplinary action
     as a factor in the agency’s penalty selection, including determini ng whether the
     prior discipline is a matter of record).        In an initial decision affirming the
     appellant’s 15-day suspension, the administrative judge noted that the proposing
     and deciding officials both considered            as prior discipline a letter of
     admonishment that was no longer a matter of record because more than 2 years
     had passed since its issuance. IAF, Tab 29, Initial Decision (ID) at 4. However,
     she did not address the impact of this error in her penalty determination. ID at 6.
¶3         When, as here, an agency errs in considering prior discipline, the Board
     determines whether the agency’s penalty selection may be affirmed without
     regard to the improperly considered discipline. Prather v. Department of Justice,
     117 M.S.P.R. 137, ¶ 35 (2011).         For the following reasons, we find that the
     agency’s penalty of a 15-day suspension is well within the tolerable limits of
     reasonableness for the sustained misconduct.         As noted by the administrative
     judge, the deciding official testified that he would have imposed a 15 -day
     suspension even in the absence of the prior letter of admonishment. ID at 5; IAF,
     Tab 27, Hearing Recording (HR). The appellant has not challenged the deciding
     official’s testimony on review and instead generally repeats his prior arguments
     about the fairness of the penalty. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5; IAF, Tab 7 at 4-6. The
     deciding official’s written decision and hearing testimony demonstrate that he
     considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate penalty. HR; IAF,
     Tab 5 at 18-19; see Pinegar v. Federal Election Commission, 105 M.S.P.R. 677,

     2
       The March 5, 2019 admonishment stated that management would retain a copy of the
     letter for a period of 2 years, after which it would no longer be a matter of record. IAF,
     Tab 5 at 57. Both the March 25, 2021 notice of proposed removal and May 17, 2021
     decision were issued more than 2 years later. Id. at 17, 25. In its prehearing statement,
     the agency acknowledged that the deciding official had considered a letter of
     admonishment that was expired. IAF, Tab 6 at 9.
                                                                                       4

     ¶ 53 (2007) (stating that, when all of the agency’s charges are sustained, the
     Board will review the agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency
     considered all of the relevant factors and exercised management discretion within
     the tolerable limits of reasonableness); Douglas v. Veterans Administration,
     5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981).
¶4        Regarding the nature and seriousness of the offense, the deciding official
     testified that sending a “lewd, pornographic message” to a subordinate employee
     was a serious offense and “totally unacceptable.”        HR; IAF, Tab 5 at 18.
     Moreover, he testified that, although he should not have considered the
     admonishment as prior discipline, the prior discipline demonstrated that the
     appellant was on notice about the type of misconduct involved in the present
     appeal. 3 HR; IAF, Tab 5 at 18; see Jinks v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     106 M.S.P.R. 627, ¶ 25 (2007) (stating that regardless of whether a prior
     disciplinary action is considered as an enhancing factor in the penalty
     determination, the agency can consider the prior action as notice that the
     appellant had been warned about the type of misconduct involved). Finally, the
     deciding official testified that the appellant had received preventative sexual
     harassment training and equal employment opportunity training. HR; IAF, Tab 5
     at 18.   Therefore, we find that the 15-day suspension remains a reasonable
     penalty for the sustained charge of conduct unbecoming toward a subordinate
     without regard to the improperly considered letter of admonishment that was no
     longer a matter of record. See Prather, 117 M.S.P.R. 137, ¶ 35.

     3
       The March 5, 2019 letter of admonishment informed the appellant that an email
     message that he had sent violated a provision of the agency’s ethics handbook, which
     states that “employees should not create any disturbances that would result in a
     negative impact on morale.” IAF, Tab 5 at 57.
                                                                                      5

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      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).

4
  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

      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, yo u 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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                  7

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 oth er 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
                                                                                       8

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 a ny court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 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

5
   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 com petent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             9

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.