Opinion

Geoffrey Butlak v. Department of Homeland Security

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Jan 3, 2025
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 33.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GEOFFREY BUTLAK, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, AT-0752-23-0120-I-1

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DATE: January 3, 2025

SECURITY,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Steven M. Cohen , Esquire, and Tyler J. Eckert , Esquire, Amherst,

New York, for the appellant.

Travlaus Clark , New Orleans, Louisiana, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

Henry J. Kerner, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed his removal from his Customs and Border Protection Officer position

based on the charges of conduct unbecoming a Customs and Border Protection

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).

Officer and lack of candor. On petition for review, the appellant argues, among

other things, that the administrative judge violated his due process rights by

reinterpreting the conduct unbecoming charge, erroneously conducted an

independent penalty review instead of a harmful error analysis after finding that

the agency deciding official failed to properly consider a mitigating factor in his

penalty assessment, and erred in the penalty analysis. 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 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 and

AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.113(b).

Regarding the conduct unbecoming charge, the agency specification

explained that the appellant asked another Customs and Border Protection Officer

to relay false information to the office director regarding the reason the appellant

was tardy. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 21-24, 37-40. The appellant argues

on review that the administrative judge misinterpreted the charge to include

allegations that he attempted to influence a coworker to lie, solicited a coworker

to further his deceit, and attempted to involve another law enforcement officer in

his deception. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 7-12. There is no

material difference between the appellant “asking” a coworker to relay false

information on his behalf to a manager and the administrative judge’s

characterization of the specification. Asking an individual to do something is an

attempt to influence, a solicitation, and an attempt to involve the individual in

whatever is being asked. Thus, contrary to the appellant’s arguments, the

administrative judge’s characterization is not outside the matters covered by the

proposal notice. 2

The appellant also argues that the administrative judge’s purported misinterpretation

of the charge constituted a due process violation under the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Ward v. U.S. Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir.

20 11), and Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 179 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed.

Cir. 1999). Those cases address an agency deciding official considering material not

set forth in the proposal notice; they do not address the findings by a Board

administrative judge. Thus, the appellant’s argument is misplaced. The appellant also

argues that, pursuant to Ward, 634 F.3d. at 1274, having found that the agency deciding

official failed to properly consider a mitigating factor, the administrative judge was

precluded from assessing the reasonableness of the agency’s penalty, and instead should

have evaluated whether the agency’s actions constituted harmful error. PFR File, Tab 1

at 15-16. As the initial decision correctly explained, when the agency has failed to

consider a mitigating factor, the agency’s determination of an appropriate penalty is not

entitled to deference, and the Board may determine how the agency’s decision should be

corrected to bring the penalty within the parameters of reasonableness. IAF, Tab 28

at 7; see Thomas v. Department of the Army, 2022 MSPB 35, ¶ 19 (stating that the

Board will modify or mitigate an agency-imposed penalty only when it finds that the

agency failed to weigh the relevant factors or the penalty clearly exceeds the bounds of

reasonableness); Chin v. Department of Defense, 2022 MSPB 34, ¶¶ 24-32 (mitigating

the appellant’s removal to a 90-day suspension when the agency deciding official failed

to properly consider mitigating factors); Wynne v. Department of Veterans Affairs,

75 M.S.P.R. 127, 133 (1997) (stating that, when the agency deciding official fails to

considered relevant mitigating factors, the Board will independently evaluate the

reasonableness of the penalty). Accordingly, we find no error in the administrative

judge assessing the reasonableness of the penalty. ID at 7-9. Regarding the penalty, we

have carefully considered the appellant’s arguments, including those related to his prior

discipline and potential Giglio-impairment, and we discern no basis to disturb the

administrative judge’s finding that removal was within the tolerable limits of

reasonableness. ID at 9-11.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3

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).

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.

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:

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

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

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. 4 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