The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
DEBORAH L. ROSEBORO, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, PH-0752-22-0228-I-2
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DATE: January 29, 2026
Agency.
THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Deborah L. Roseboro , Thorndale, Pennsylvania, pro se.
Sarah Bishop , Esquire, and Lucia R. Miras , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for
the agency.
BEFORE
Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman
James J. Woodruff II, Member
REMAND ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
sustained the agency’s chapter 75 removal action. For the reasons discussed
below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial
decision, and REMAND the case to the Northeastern Regional Office for further
adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The appellant’s assertions regarding the agency’s charges are unpersuasive .
The appellant makes several assertions regarding the events underlying the
agency’s charges. Roseboro v. Department of Justice, MSPB Docket No.
PH-0752-22-0228-I-2, Refiled Petition for Review (RPFR) File, Tab 1 at 2-3 . To
the extent these assertions challenge the administrative judge’s conclusion that
the agency proved its charges of lack of candor, failure to report off-duty
misconduct, and conduct unbecoming a Federal employee, we find the assertions,
which amount to mere disagreement with the administrative judge’s reasoned
findings, unpersuasive. Roseboro v. Department of Justice, MSPB Docket No.
PH-0752-22-0228-I-2, Appeal File (I-2 AF), Tab 8, Initial Decision (I -2 ID)
at 3-11; see Davison v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 115 M.S.P.R. 640, ¶ 9
(2011) (indicating that mere disagreement with an administrative judge’s
explained findings is not a basis to grant a petition for review); see also Tines v.
Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992) (stating that a petition
for review must contain sufficient specificity to enable the Board to ascertain
whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge ). We also agree with the
administrative judge’s conclusions regarding nexus, penalty, and the appellant’s
affirmative defenses of whistleblower reprisal and a hostile work environment. 2
I-2 ID at 11-16.
2
Although the agency’s charge of conduct unbecoming a Federal employee involved
off-duty conduct, we agree that the agency satisfied the nexus requirement. I -2 ID
at 14; Roseboro v. Department of Justice, MSPB Docket No. PH-0752-22-0228-I-1,
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 90. Indeed, as set forth in the initial decision, the
deciding official “lost confidence in [the appellant’s] reliability as well as in her ability
to demonstrate proper conduct and perform the duties and responsibilities of her
position.” I-2 ID at 15; IAF, Tab 4 at 47; see Kruger v. Department of Justice,
32 M.S.P.R. 71, 74 (1987) (recognizing three means by which an agency may show a
nexus linking an employee’s off-duty misconduct with the efficiency of the service, one
of which is satisfied by showing by preponderant evidence that the misconduct affects
management’s trust and confidence in the employee’s job performance).
3
We remand this appeal for further adjudication of the appellant’s claim of equal
employment opportunity (EEO) retaliation.
The appellant avers that she filed an “EEOC lawsuit” against her
supervisors, which caused them to retaliate against her and remove her from her
position. RPFR File, Tab 1 at 3. She requests that the Board “review [her] case
again, [d]ue to the retaliation.” Id. at 4. The record indicates that the pro se
appellant raised a claim of EEO retaliation both in a filing submitted after her
initial appeal was dismissed without prejudice, 3 and again prior to the close of the
record in her refiled appeal; however, she did not receive notice of the relevant
burden for such a claim. Roseboro v. Department of Justice, MSPB Docket No.
PH-0752-22-0228-I-1, Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 6; I-2 AF, Tab 5 at 1,
Tab 6 at 2, 4; see Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-
44 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we remand this appeal for further adjudication.
See Guzman v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 566, ¶¶ 18-19
(2010) (remanding an appeal when the administrative judge did not inform the
appellant of the burden and elements of proof for establishing an affirmative
defense). On remand, the administrative judge should clarify the basis of the
appellant’s claim of EEO retaliation, apprise her of the burdens and elements of
proof of her affirmative defense, and allow her to submit additional evidence
regarding the same. Because the appellant withdrew her request for a hearing, I-2
AF, Tab 5 at 1, the administrative judge may issue the remand initial decision
based on the written record.
ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order. In the remand
3
The appellant’s initial appeal was dismissed without prejudice due to a pending
criminal case related to the agency’s charges. Roseboro v. Department of Justice,
MSPB Docket No. PH-0752-22-0228-I-1, Final Order at 1-2 (Mar. 15, 2024). The
appeal was thereafter refiled, and the refiled appeal is presently before the Board.
I-2 AF, Tab 2 at 1.
4
initial decision, the administrative judge may reincorporate prior findings as
appropriate, consistent with this Remand Order.
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.