NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-3226
LARRY KEMP,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: November 10, 2005
__________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Larry Kemp (“Kemp”) appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“Agency”) 30-
day suspension of Kemp. Kemp v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. CH-0752-03-0671-I-1
(Jan. 21, 2004). Because the Board’s affirmance of the Agency’s 30-day suspension of
Kemp was based on substantial evidence, was not contrary to law, and was not an
abuse of discretion, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Kemp was a Cemetery Caretaker Supervisor, WS-4754-8, at the Agency. On
May 16, 2003, Kemp was given a Mid-Term Performance Review Counseling in which
his supervisor, Jan Klahs, instructed Kemp to provide her a list of tasks that Kemp’s
subordinates will work on so that she could ensure he was learning how to supervise
and delegate authority as opposed to performing too much of his subordinates’ work.
Kemp, slip op. at 2-4. On May 20, 2003, at 4:03 pm, Kemp entered the office of Ms.
Klahs to report on his activities, as instructed in the counseling letter. Id. at 2. Because
the duty day was already over, Ms. Klahs instructed Kemp to leave her office and return
the next morning, but he refused. Id. According to Kemp, Ms. Klahs ordered him to
leave her office four times, and he admits that he consistently refused to do so. Id. at 3.
Kemp finally left, only after Ms. Klahs walked to her door and opened it for him to leave.
Id. at 2.
On May 30, 2003, Kemp was given a notice of proposed suspension for
disrespectful conduct towards a supervisor, based on the May 20, 2003 incident. The
notice cited two additional prior incidents of disrespectful conduct.1 On July 2, 2003,
Kemp was given a 30-day suspension for the period July 21, 2003 through August 19,
2003. Id. at 4-5.
On July 18, 2003, Kemp appealed the suspension decision to the Board. The
Board affirmed the Agency’s action. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
1
Kemp was issued a reprimand on October 3, 2000, for disrespectful
conduct and was issued a 20-day suspension on March 24, 2002, for profane language
and disrespectful conduct.
05-3226 2
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
Pursuant to
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), we must affirm the Board’s decision unless it 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. Abell v. Dep’t of Navy,
343 F.3d
1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The burden of establishing reversible error in an
administrative decision, such as the Board’s, rests upon the petitioner. Harris v. Dep’t
of Veterans Affairs,
142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Analysis
The Agency has the burden of proving its charges by a preponderance of the
evidence. See
5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1)(B) (2000). In reviewing whether an agency’s
penalty decision is reasonable, the Board is required to ascertain whether the agency
responsibly balanced the factors delineated in Douglas v. Veterans Administration,
5
M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981). See Gonzales v. Def. Logistics Agency,
772 F.2d 887,
889 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the Board held that the Agency met its burden of proving its
charges by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Agency’s penalty decision
was reasonable in light of the relevant Douglas factors.
Kemp asserts that the decision of the Board was erroneous and should be
reversed. Kemp first argues that the Board failed to take into consideration statements
from his witnesses. This argument is without merit. This court will not interfere with the
conduct of proceedings by administrative agencies like the Board absent special
circumstances. Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435
05-3226
3
U.S. 519, 543 (1978). Furthermore, “[t]he mere fact that a presiding official does not
accept the assertions of an appellant or interpret testimony in the fashion appellant
would desire does not constitute impropriety.” Karapinka v. Dep’t of Energy,
6 M.S.P.R.
124, 127-28 (1981). Kemp offers no evidence that the statements of his witnesses were
tendered to the Board and were ruled inadmissible in his case, nor does he suggest
how that evidence would have been relevant to the charges against him. Indeed, the
Board credited Kemp’s version of the facts, noting that there was virtually no
discrepancy between the evidence provided by Kemp and the Agency. Based on
Kemp’s facts, including his admission that he disobeyed his supervisor’s orders, the
Board found that the Agency proved the charge of disrespectful conduct towards a
supervisor by a preponderance of the evidence. Kemp, slip op. at 3. We conclude that
Kemp has not come forward with special circumstances that would warrant reversal on
this ground.
Kemp next argues that the Agency’s evidence should not be credited because
the Agency lied under oath. Credibility findings of an Administrative Judge are entitled
to great weight in a Board proceeding. See Hambsch v. Dep’t of Treasury,
796 F.2d
430, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kemp’s credibility argument is based only on unsupported
and general assertions. Kemp provides us with no basis for determining whether his
assertions are true and does not point to any evidence to support his accusations that
the Agency lied or fabricated evidence. The record demonstrates unequivocally that
Kemp refused to leave his supervisor’s office when ordered to do so and Kemp’s
concession that he disobeyed his supervisor’s orders corroborates the Agency’s version
of the facts. Moreover, the Board determination rests on Kemp’s version of the facts,
05-3226 4
not the Agency’s. We therefore conclude that Kemp has not met his burden of
establishing that the Board’s decision should be overturned on this ground.
Kemp also asserts that the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) prejudged the issues
against him based on a statement made by the AJ during pre-trial settlement
discussions. In making a claim of prejudice or predetermination, Kemp must overcome
a heavy presumption of honesty and integrity which accompanies administrative
adjudicators. Oliver v. Dep’t of Transp.,
1 M.S.P.R. 382, 386 (1980); see Pascal v.
United States,
543 F.2d 1284, 1288 (Ct. Cl. 1976). Kemp has failed to make such a
showing. During pre-trial settlement discussions, the AJ informed Kemp that if Kemp
confessed at trial to disobeying orders to leave his supervisor’s office, then the AJ would
find that the Agency had supported its charges of disrespectful conduct towards a
supervisor. Kemp, slip op. at 5, n.3. The AJ explained, in a lengthy footnote, that he
was merely informing Kemp of the legal ramifications of such a confession, should one
be made at trial.
Id. Furthermore, because the legal findings of the AJ are subject to
appellate review by the Board and by this Court, the AJ noted that any alleged prejudice
was harmless error.
Id. Kemp has not come forward with evidence sufficient to support
his allegation that the AJ’s statement during pre-trial settlement discussions shows
prejudgment. We therefore affirm the Board’s holding that Kemp’s allegations that the
AJ prejudged the issues are insufficient to warrant reversal.
Kemp further contends that he is prejudiced by lack of a tape recording or
transcript of the hearing in his case. He alleges that “absence of a recording or
transcript makes [the AJ’s] decision, factual determinations, and conclusions essentially
un-reviewable.” However, there is no evidence that the hearing tape is missing,
05-3226 5
inaudible, or incomplete. Furthermore, we have held that unavailability of a transcript is
not harmful per se and that, where such unavailability is not fatal to review, it does not
require reversal of the Board’s determination. See Harp v. Dep’t of the Army,
791 F.2d
161, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the AJ’s opinion contains a detailed analysis
that demonstrates careful consideration of the testimony and weighing of the evidence.
Kemp has not indicated that the AJ’s opinion omits evidence essential to his appeal, or
how any supposed omission might affect his appeal. Thus, there being no showing that
the testimony was in any way different from that related by the AJ in the initial decision,
Kemp has not satisfied his burden of establishing prejudice with the requisite specificity
to require that the Board’s decision be overturned.
Kemp argues also that the Board erred in its disposition of his affirmative defense
of retaliation. In order to make out an allegation of retaliation, Kemp must come forward
with non-frivolous allegations that (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) his
supervisor knew of that protected activity; (3) his 30-day suspension could have been
retaliation under the circumstances; and (4) there was a genuine nexus between the
retaliation and his 30-day suspension. See Webster v. Dep’t of the Army,
911 F.2d 679,
689 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Without support, Kemp contends that he has proven a pattern of abuse and
conspiracy by the Agency to suspend him from federal service. Kemp only provides
vague and unspecific allegations of retaliation without alleging that he engaged in any
protected activity or that any protected activity contributed to his 30-day suspension.
The Board held that Kemp had not placed evidence of any protected disclosure on the
record and that, even assuming protected activity, the penalty was extremely lenient.
05-3226 6
Kemp, slip op. at 5. The Board found that the Agency would have imposed the same
penalty regardless as to protected activity, and that Kemp’s conclusory, unsubstantiated
allegations do not suffice to prove retaliation.
Id. Furthermore, there is no indication in
the record that Kemp’s supervisor had any knowledge of protected activity or that the
30-day suspension was the result of a retaliatory motive. Accordingly, we affirm the
Board’s holding that Kemp failed to establish that the Agency action was the result of
retaliation.
Kemp next challenges the severity of the penalty, contending that the Board
should have mitigated his penalty by taking into consideration that he showed remorse.
Kemp cites to no authority to support his claim that the penalty was too harsh. We have
held that the determination of the proper disciplinary action to be taken to promote the
efficiency of the service is a judgment call best left to the discretion of the agency. See
Hunt v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
758 F.2d 608, 611 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Gonzales
v. Def. Logistics Agency,
772 F.2d 887, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Deference is given to an
agency’s judgment unless the penalty exceeds the range of permissible punishment
specified by statute or regulation, or unless the penalty is “so harsh and unconscionably
disproportionate to the offense that it amounts to an abuse of discretion.” Parker v.
United States Postal Serv.,
819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (internal citations
omitted); see also Guise v. Dep’t of Justice,
330 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The Board held that the Agency’s penalty decision was reasonable in light of the
relevant Douglas factors. Although the Board did not discuss every factor, not all of the
factors are pertinent in every case. See Douglas, 5 M.S.P.R. at 306. In reviewing the
penalty imposed upon Kemp, the Board found that this is Kemp’s third offense of the
05-3226 7
same type of misconduct and that Kemp “made it clear that he felt that he was justified
in disobeying orders if he did not agree with them.” Kemp, slip op. at 4. The Board also
found that Kemp is “devoted to his job” and “was a very good line worker,” but has not
learned how to be a supervisor. Id. Based on the record, the Board concluded that the
Agency’s decision to suspend Kemp for 30-days for the charged conduct was not an
abuse of discretion and that the penalty was “well within the tolerable limits of
reasonableness.” Id. at 3-5. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Board
properly determined that the penalty of suspension was reasonable, and therefore
affirm the Board’s decision.
We have considered the remainder of Kemp’s arguments and find them to be
without merit.
05-3226 8
