UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
ELESHIA HEGGINS, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0752-18-0540-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND DATE: May 1, 2024 URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Don T. O’Bannon , Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the appellant.
Mary C. Merchant , Esquire, Sakeena M. Adams , Esquire, and Taylor L. Baronich , Esquire, Fort Worth, 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 her removal. 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
1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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
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 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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to clarify the administrative judge’s analysis in sustaining the charge of lack of candor, we AFFIRM the initial decision. On petition for review, the appellant argues that the agency: (1) failed to prove its charge of falsification of time and attendance records; (2) failed to prove the third specification of the charge of lack of candor; and (3) failed to provide her with requested union representation or notify her of her right to union representation prior to her interview with agents of the agency’s Office of Inspector General. Petition for Review File, Tab 1. She does not challenge the administrative judge’s findings that she failed to prove her remaining affirmative defenses, that a nexus exists between her conduct and the efficiency of the service, and that the penalty of removal did not exceed the bounds of reasonableness. We have reviewed the appellant’s arguments regarding the agency’s failure to prove its charge of falsification, as well as her argument that the agency failed to provide her with her requested union representation or notice of her right to union representation, and affirm the administrative judge’s findings for the reasons set forth in the initial decision. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 51, Initial Decision (ID); see Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016) (finding no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings 3
when she considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions on the issue of credibility). We find the appellant’s argument regarding the third specification of the lack of candor charge to be without merit; however, we clarify the administrative judge’s analysis of this charge. An agency alleging lack of candor must prove (1) that the employee gave incorrect or incomplete information and (2) that she did so knowingly. Fargnoli v. Department of Commerce, 123 M.S.P.R. 330, ¶ 17 (2016). The agency’s sustained specifications provided that the appellant “knowingly” provided incorrect information to agency officials. IAF, Tab 14 at 28-38. However, the administrative judge found that, for each sustained specification, the appellant supplied incorrect information to agency officials and, in doing so, “intended to deceive” the agency. ID at 11-14. Although lack of candor “necessarily involves an element of deception,” “intent to deceive” is not a separate element of the offense, as it is for falsification. Ludlum v. Department of Justice, 278 F.3d 1280, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It was not necessary for the administrative judge to find the appellant’s conduct intentional to sustain the lack of candor charge. ID at 11-14; see Prouty v. General Services Administration, 122 M.S.P.R. 117, ¶ 16 (2014) (observing that the Board is required to review the agency’s decision on an adverse action solely on the grounds invoked by the agency). Any error that the administrative judge made in her findings was not prejudicial to the appellant, however, because a finding of intent implicitly includes a finding that the appellant’s conduct was knowing. See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (providing that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of the initial decision). Accordingly, the administrative judge properly found that the agency proved its charge of lack of candor. ID at 11-16. We affirm the initial decision, as modified herein. 4
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
ELESHIA HEGGINS, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0752-18-0540-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND DATE: May 1, 2024 URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Don T. O’Bannon , Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the appellant.
Mary C. Merchant , Esquire, Sakeena M. Adams , Esquire, and Taylor L. Baronich , Esquire, Fort Worth, 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 her removal. 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
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
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 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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to clarify the administrative judge’s analysis in sustaining the charge of lack of candor, we AFFIRM the initial decision. On petition for review, the appellant argues that the agency: (1) failed to prove its charge of falsification of time and attendance records; (2) failed to prove the third specification of the charge of lack of candor; and (3) failed to provide her with requested union representation or notify her of her right to union representation prior to her interview with agents of the agency’s Office of Inspector General. Petition for Review File, Tab 1. She does not challenge the administrative judge’s findings that she failed to prove her remaining affirmative defenses, that a nexus exists between her conduct and the efficiency of the service, and that the penalty of removal did not exceed the bounds of reasonableness. We have reviewed the appellant’s arguments regarding the agency’s failure to prove its charge of falsification, as well as her argument that the agency failed to provide her with her requested union representation or notice of her right to union representation, and affirm the administrative judge’s findings for the reasons set forth in the initial decision. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 51, Initial Decision (ID); see Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016) (finding no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings 3
when she considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions on the issue of credibility). We find the appellant’s argument regarding the third specification of the lack of candor charge to be without merit; however, we clarify the administrative judge’s analysis of this charge. An agency alleging lack of candor must prove (1) that the employee gave incorrect or incomplete information and (2) that she did so knowingly. Fargnoli v. Department of Commerce, 123 M.S.P.R. 330, ¶ 17 (2016). The agency’s sustained specifications provided that the appellant “knowingly” provided incorrect information to agency officials. IAF, Tab 14 at 28-38. However, the administrative judge found that, for each sustained specification, the appellant supplied incorrect information to agency officials and, in doing so, “intended to deceive” the agency. ID at 11-14. Although lack of candor “necessarily involves an element of deception,” “intent to deceive” is not a separate element of the offense, as it is for falsification. Ludlum v. Department of Justice, 278 F.3d 1280, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It was not necessary for the administrative judge to find the appellant’s conduct intentional to sustain the lack of candor charge. ID at 11-14; see Prouty v. General Services Administration, 122 M.S.P.R. 117, ¶ 16 (2014) (observing that the Board is required to review the agency’s decision on an adverse action solely on the grounds invoked by the agency). Any error that the administrative judge made in her findings was not prejudicial to the appellant, however, because a finding of intent implicitly includes a finding that the appellant’s conduct was knowing. See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (providing that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of the initial decision). Accordingly, the administrative judge properly found that the agency proved its charge of lack of candor. ID at 11-16. We affirm the initial decision, as modified herein. 4
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2 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:
2 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. 5
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 6
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 7
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. 3 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.
3 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. 8
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.