Braun v. Department of the Navy

191 F. App'x 947
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedAugust 10, 2006
Docket2006-3067
StatusUnpublished

This text of 191 F. App'x 947 (Braun v. Department of the Navy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Braun v. Department of the Navy, 191 F. App'x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Braun appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which upheld its initial decision affirming the Department of the Navy’s removal of Braun from federal employment. Braun v. Dep’t of the Navy, SF0752050100-I-1, 100 M.S.P.R. 61 (MSPB Sept. 21, 2005). We affirm.

We may only reverse a board’s decision if it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawful; procedurally deficient; or unsupported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “[A]n evaluation of witness credibility is within the discretion of the Board [and is] ‘virtually unreviewable’ on appeal.” King v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 133 F.3d *948 1450, 1458 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citation omitted). We “will not disturb a choice of penalty within the agency’s discretion unless the severity of the agency’s action appears totally unwarranted in light of all the factors.” Mings v. Dep’t of Justice, 813 F.2d 384, 390 (Fed.Cir.1987).

Substantial evidence supports the board’s findings, regardless of Braun’s claim that some evidence weighs against them. Braun’s testimony itself provides substantial evidence supporting the May 26, 2004 charges. Substantial evidence, such as Siron and Thomas’ testimony, also supports the board’s finding that Braun charged excessive labor hours. Nothing about the board’s credibility determinations suggests that the deference normally granted to such decisions should be stripped away; they did not amount to an abuse of discretion and there is no sound reason to disturb them. Finally, the penalty the agency selected (i.e., removal) was not unwarranted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dwayne T. Mings v. Department of Justice
813 F.2d 384 (Federal Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 F. App'x 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braun-v-department-of-the-navy-cafc-2006.