Kenneth H. Stalans v. National Security Agency, Merit Systems Protection Board, Intervenor

678 F.2d 482, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20913
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 18, 1982
Docket81-1493
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 678 F.2d 482 (Kenneth H. Stalans v. National Security Agency, Merit Systems Protection Board, Intervenor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kenneth H. Stalans v. National Security Agency, Merit Systems Protection Board, Intervenor, 678 F.2d 482, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20913 (4th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge:

The Merit Systems Protection Board (reversing a decision by the Presiding Official of the Washington, D. C. Field Office of the Board) found that behavior of Kenneth H. Stalans was such that his discharge would promote the efficiency of the service. See 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a).

Stalans, a long-time employee occupying an elevated position of extreme sensitivity with the National Security Agency of the United States Government, was determined to have engaged in sexual activity with his minor daughter. Bearing in mind the inevitable and inherent risks in work of the nature which Stalans performed, the confidentiality of the information to which he would continue to have access, and the impracticality of his remaining employed if denied clearance and access to classified information, the Merit Systems Protection Board was fully within its authority, supported by substantial evidence, 1 and not arbitrary or capricious in reaching its determination that, in the interests of promoting the efficiency of the service, the discharge of Stalans should not be reversed or modified. The Board committed no abuse of discretion and did not depart from law or regulation. The misconduct reflected adversely on Stalans’ trustworthiness. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The question to which substantial attention was devoted in the briefs of the parties of whether the test is purely one of substantial evidence or is to be cast in terms of rational basis need not be pursued. On either approach, the Board’s determination was sustainable.

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

Related

Renee Nelson v. Department of the Army
Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024
Raymond Slayton v. Department of Agriculture
Merit Systems Protection Board, 2023
Gregory Einboden v. Department of the Navy
2015 MSPB 26 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2015)
Jason Kraft v. Department of Transportation
Merit Systems Protection Board, 2015
Larry E. Graybill v. United States Postal Service
782 F.2d 1567 (Federal Circuit, 1986)
Loyce E. Hayes v. Department of the Navy
727 F.2d 1535 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
D.E. v. Department of the Navy, MSPB
721 F.2d 1165 (Ninth Circuit, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
678 F.2d 482, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-h-stalans-v-national-security-agency-merit-systems-protection-ca4-1982.