Opinion

Steven Campbell v. U.S. Postal Service

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: May 28, 2026
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 40.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

STEVEN CAMPBELL, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, AT-0752-24-0579-I-1

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DATE: May 28, 2026

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Steven Campbell , Evensville, Tennessee, pro se.

Roderick Eves , Esquire, Jennifer C. Kellett , Esquire, and Bobbi Mihal ,

Esquire, St. Louis, Missouri, for the agency.

BEFORE

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman

James J. Woodruff II, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

affirmed the agency’s removal of the appellant from his Supervisor Customer

Service position based on a charge of improper conduct. 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

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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).

When, as here, the Board sustains all of the charges, it will review an

agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all of the

relevant factors and exercised management discretion within the tolerable limits

of reasonableness. Chin v. Department of Defense, 2022 MSPB 34, ¶ 24; Raco v.

Social Security Administration, 117 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 13 (2011); Douglas v. Veterans

Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 306 (1981). In determining whether the selected

penalty is reasonable, the Board gives due deference to the agency’s discretion in

exercising its managerial function of maintaining employee discipline and

efficiency. Chin, 2022 MSPB 34, ¶ 24; Raco, 117 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 13. The Board

will modify a penalty only when it finds that the agency failed to weigh the

relevant factors or that the penalty imposed by the agency clearly exceeds the

bounds of reasonableness. Chin, 2022 MSPB 34, ¶ 24. The most important

factor in determining the reasonableness of the penalty is the nature and

seriousness of the misconduct and its relationship to the employee’s duties,

including whether the offense was intentional or repeated. Id., ¶ 28; see Rackers

v. Department of Justice, 79 M.S.P.R. 262, 282 (1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1336 (Fed.

Cir. 1999) (Table). Also, of particular significance in this appeal is that the

appellant held a supervisory position, and it is well settled that an agency may

hold a supervisor to a higher standard of conduct. Edwards v. U.S. Postal

Service, 116 M.S.P.R. 173, ¶ 14 (2010).

On review, the appellant argues, as he did below, that the agency could

have transferred him to a different location rather than removing him. Petition

for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The administrative judge correctly found,

however, that the deciding official properly considered the relevant Douglas

factors, including the nature and seriousness of the appellant’s misconduct, its

relationship to his duties, that it was repeated and intentional, and that the

appellant was a supervisor. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 101; Tab 7, Initial

Decision at 5-6. The deciding official further explained that he lost confidence in

the appellant’s ability to perform his duties and that the appellant did not have a

good potential for rehabilitation. IAF, Tab 4 at 102. Regarding mitigating

factors, the deciding official concluded that the appellant’s 5 years of

discipline-free service with the agency was insufficient to outweigh the other

Douglas factors. Id. at 101-02. As the administrative judge did, we agree with

the agency’s penalty assessment and discern no reason to disturb the initial

decision. 2

Regarding the appellant’s argument that he has experienced various health

benefit-related difficulties because the agency did not take action after proposing his

removal, PFR File, Tab 1 at 3, we do not find this argument relevant with respect to the

correctness of the administrative judge’s findings. Rather, this is a product of the

agency’s internal procedures. Under the agency’s Employee and Labor Relations

Manual, Section 651.76, discharged nonbargaining employees who file a Board appeal

remain on the rolls in a nonpay, nonduty status until the disposition of the case. U.S.

Postal Service, Employee and Labor Relations Manual § 651.76 (Mar. 2024),

https://about.usps.com/manuals/elm/html/elmc6_018.htm (last visited May 28, 2026);

see Azdell v. Office of Personnel Management, 88 M.S.P.R. 319, 323 (2001) (providing

that the Board may take administrative notice of public documents).

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