NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3033
VERNITA D. BOYD,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Respondent.
Vernita D. Boyd, of Chicago, Illinois, pro se.
Steven J. Abelson, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief
were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and
Kathryn A. Bleecker, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3033
VERNITA D. BOYD,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: April 18, 2007
__________________________
Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, LINN, Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Vernita D. Boyd seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (Board) affirming the decision of her employer, the Department of the
Treasury (agency), to remove her from her position as a supervisory revenue agent.
Boyd v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. CH0752050612-I-2 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 29, 2006). We
affirm.
I
The agency removed Ms. Boyd for seven reasons (charges), each with several
specifications (the number of specifications for each reason is shown in parentheses):
inappropriate use of government credit card (5), failure to timely pay government credit
card account (1), false and/or misleading statements and/or representations in a matter
of official interest (3), failure to follow managerial directions (11), failure to timely and
accurately file travel vouchers (5), absence without approved leave (45), and failure to
comply with appropriate leave policy (45).
Ms. Boyd appealed her removal to the Board. The administrative judge (AJ)
assigned to her case merged the sixth and seventh reasons as one and the same, and
held a two-day hearing during which agency witnesses and Ms. Boyd testified.
The AJ first rejected Ms. Boyd’s main line of defense, which was that
Ms. Bessert, who had issued various orders to Ms. Boyd, was not her supervisor after a
reorganization. Consequently, according to Ms. Boyd, she was free to disregard all
orders and work demands issued by Ms. Bessert. The AJ found, instead, that the post-
reorganization supervisor, Mr. McCarthy, had in fact authorized Ms. Bessert to act as
Ms. Boyd’s first-line supervisor.
The AJ found the agency’s witnesses to be credible, but found most of
Ms. Boyd’s testimony not believable. The AJ concluded that all but four specifications
on the six reasons for removal were proven by preponderant evidence. The AJ rejected
Ms. Boyd’s affirmative Whistleblower and EEO retaliation defenses. The AJ determined
that sufficient nexus existed between the sustained charges and the efficiency of the
service. The AJ reviewed the deciding official’s assessment of the Douglas factors, and
concluded that removal is an acceptable penalty for the charges sustained, given the
supervisory position held by Ms. Boyd.
2007-3033 2
The full Board declined review of the AJ’s decision sustaining Ms. Boyd’s
removal, making the AJ’s decision the final decision of the Board. Ms. Boyd timely
sought review in this court.
II
We must affirm the final decision of the Board unless we determine that it is
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Facts found by the Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
The numerous findings of fact made by the Board in sustaining all but four of the
specifications for the six charges are each supported by substantial evidence. Much of
Ms. Boyd’s defense on the facts was rejected as not credible, and we cannot go behind
that determination. The Board correctly held that Ms. Boyd failed to shoulder her
burden on her affirmative defenses. We perceive no error in law by the Board in
sustaining the agency’s removal action, and we see no procedural error in the Board’s
hearing of this case. Accordingly, we affirm.
2007-3033 3