Case: Charles Leveritt v. Department of the Air Force
Abbreviation: Leveritt v. Department of the Air Force
Decision Date: 1982-04-27
Docket Number: App. No. 20-81
Citation: 230 Ct. Cl. 929
Volume: 230
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Charles Leveritt v. Department of the Air Force
Judges: Before friedman, Chief Judge, bennett, Judge, and rich, Judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Pages: 929–930

Head Matter:
App. No. 20-81.
April 27, 1982
Charles Leveritt v. Department of the Air Force
Shelby W. Hollín, attorney of record, for petitioner.
Marsha D. Peterson, with whom was Assistant Attorney General J. Paul McGrath, for respondent. Major Wood Rigsby, Department of the Air Force, of counsel.
Before friedman, Chief Judge, bennett, Judge, and rich, Judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §293(a) (1976).

Opinion:
This petition for review challenges a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("the Board") upholding the removal of the petitioner as a supervisory safety engineer with the Air Force. We affirm the Board's decision.
The petitioner was removed for a number of acts of misconduct. The principal offense was the dissemination to the petitioner's subordinates of copies of a memorandum the petitioner sent to his superior summarizing the charges in an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint the petitioner had filed against the supervisor. That complaint had been "based on discrimination due to age," but included also charges against the supervisor of "Petty theft of government property," "Mis-use of a government vehicle," and "Gross abuse of supervisory authority." The petitioner's other offenses were failing to follow directions, insolence to his superior, and unauthorized absence. In a lengthy opinion, a field office of the Board sustained the removal. In an opinion which discussed and rejected all of the major points the petitioner argues before us, the main office of the Board denied his petition for review.
Before this court the petitioner repeats the arguments he made before the two levels of the Board. He challenges the procedures the agency followed in removing him and contends that the decision to remove him is not supported by substantial evidence.
Under the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. §7703(c) (Supp. IV 1980), our review is limited to determining whether a Board decision is "(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence." We have reviewed the Board's decision in the light of the administrative record. We hold that the Board decision sustaining the petitioner's removal did not violate any of the foregoing standards. The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is affirmed.