Fidelis Odoh v. Office of Personnel Management

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

2022 MSPB 5

Docket No. CH-0731-16-0344-I-1

Fidelis O. Odoh,

Appellant,

v.

Office of Personnel Management,

Agency.

April 19, 2022

Janice L. Jackson, Leavenworth, Kansas, for the appellant.

Joyce B. Harris-Tounkara, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

OPINION AND ORDER

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

affirmed the suitability determination of the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM), but remanded it to OPM to decide whether the resulting suitability action

was appropriate based on the sustained charge. For the reasons discussed below,

we DENY the appellant’s petition for review, and AFFIRM the initial decision.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In February 2015, the appellant’s private employer terminated him for

sleeping on duty. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8, 54-61. In May 2015, the

Department of the Army appointed him to a Recreation Specialist position. Id.

2

at 105. Two months prior to his appointment, in March 2015, he completed and

electronically signed an Optional Form (OF) 306, Declaration for Federal

Employment. Id. at 209-10. Among other things, he answered “no” to the

question of whether during the last 5 years he had “been fired from any job for

any reason.” Id. at 209. Upon reporting for his new position, in May 2015, he

signed a hardcopy OF-306 containing the same response. Id. at 211-13.

¶3 In March 2016, after investigating his background and suitability, OPM

instructed the Department of the Army to separate the appellant from service,

cancelled his eligibility for reinstatement, cancelled his eligibility for

appointment, and debarred him for a period of 3 years. Id. at 16. OPM’s

negative suitability determination was based upon two charges : (1) misconduct

or negligence in employment; and (2) material, intentional false statement, or

deception or fraud in examination or appointment. Id. at 19-21. The Department

of the Army separated the appellant effective March 26, 2016. Id. at 11.

¶4 The appellant filed the instant appeal challenging OPM’s negative

suitability determination. IAF, Tab 1 at 2. After holding the requested hearing,

the administrative judge remanded the matter to OPM. IAF, Tab 15,

Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 9. She found that OPM only proved its second

charge—material, intentional false statement, or deception or fraud in

examination or appointment. ID at 5-8. Therefore, pursuant to 5 C.F.R.

§ 731.501(b)(2), she ordered OPM to determine whether the suitability action

taken was appropriate based on that remaining charge. ID at 8 -9.

¶5 The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)

File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response, and the appellant has replied. PFR

File, Tabs 5-6.

ANALYSIS

¶6 To prevail in a negative suitability determination appeal, OPM must

demonstrate by preponderant evidence that the appellant’s conduct or character

3

may have an impact on the integrity or efficiency of the service, based on one of

the specific factors listed in 5 C.F.R. § 731.202(b). Hawes v. Office of Personnel

Management, 122 M.S.P.R. 341, ¶ 5 (2015); see 5 C.F.R. §§ 731.101(a),

731.202(a), 731.501(b). One of those factors mirrors the c harge at issue in this

appeal—material, intentional false statement, or deception or fraud in

examination or appointment. 5 C.F.R. § 731.202(b)(3).

¶7 The Board has jurisdiction to review all aspects of a suitability

determination, including whether the charged conduct renders an individual

unsuitable for the position in question. Hawes, 122 M.S.P.R. 341, ¶ 5. If the

Board determines that one or more of the charges brought by OPM is supported

by a preponderance of the evidence, regardless of whether all specifications are

sustained, it must affirm the suitability determination. Id.; 5 C.F.R.

§ 731.501(b)(1). If the Board sustains fewer than all the charges, the Board must

remand the case to OPM to determine whether the resulting suitability action

taken is appropriate based on the sustained charge. Hawes, 122 M.S.P.R. 341,

¶ 5; 5 C.F.R. § 731.501(b)(2).

¶8 The single charge that the administrative judge sustained was based upon an

allegation that the appellant provided false information when he twice answered

“no” in response to the question of whether he had been fired during the past

5 years, even though he had been fired from his most recent job just weeks

earlier. 1 IAF, Tab 8 at 19-22, 50-61, 209-13. When confronted during OPM’s

investigation, the appellant attributed his responses to a misunderstanding of the

question. Id. at 32. According to the appellant, he interpreted the question as

asking whether he had been fired from Federal employment. Id.

¶9 OPM was required to prove, by preponderant evidence, that the appellant:

(1) supplied wrong information; and (2) knowingly did so with the intention of

1

On review, neither party challenges the administrative judge’s finding that the agency

failed to prove its other charge. ID at 5-6. We decline to disturb that finding.

4

defrauding, deceiving, or misleading the agency. Boo v. Department of

Homeland Security, 122 M.S.P.R. 100, ¶ 10 (2014); see Hawes, 122 M.S.P.R.

341, ¶ 21 (analyzing a charge of “material, intentional false statement, or

deception or fraud in examination or appointment” under the same standards as a

falsification charge). The appellant does not dispute the administrative judge’s

finding that he supplied wrong information, and we see no reason to disturb that

finding. ID at 7-8. The appellant does, however, dispute the administrative

judge’s finding of intent. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-8.

¶10 To prove the intent element of a falsification charge, an agency must

establish that the employee intended to deceive the agency for his own private

material gain. Leatherbury v. Department of the Army, 524 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed.

Cir. 2008); Boo, 122 M.S.P.R. 100, ¶¶ 11-12 & n.3. Such intent may be

established by circumstantial evidence or inferred when the misrepresentation is

made with reckless disregard for the truth or with conscious purpose to avoid

learning the truth. Boo, 122 M.S.P.R. 100, ¶ 10. In determining whether an

agency has proven intent, the Board must consider the totality of the

circumstances, including the appellant’s plausible explanation, if any. Id.

Securing employment, as here, is private material gain that will support the

charge. Hawes, 122 M.S.P.R. 341, ¶ 21.

¶11 In relevant part, the OF-306 asks:

During the last 5 years, have you been fired from any job for any

reason, did you quit your job after being told that you would be

fired, did you leave any job by mutual agreement because of specific

problems, or were you debarred from Federal employment by [OPM]

or any other Federal agency?

IAF, Tab 8 at 209. Below, the appellant argued that he answered the question on

the OF-306 properly, based upon his understanding of the question. Specifically,

he suggested that he understood the question to be asking about only Federal jobs.

IAF, Tab 11 at 9-10; see Leatherbury, 524 F.3d at 1301 (observing that a

reasonable good faith belief that a statement is true “precludes a finding that an

5

employee acted with deceptive intent”); Boo, 122 M.S.P.R. 100, ¶ 10 (observing

that a plausible explanation must be considered in deciding intent). The

administrative judge found that it was more likely that he sought to conceal his

prior termination in order to secure employment. ID at 7-8.

¶12 On review, the appellant reasserts that the charge should not be sustained

because he simply misunderstood the question. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-8. However,

we find that his disagreement with the administrative judge’s well -reasoned

credibility-based findings provides no basis for disturbing the initial decision.

See Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997) (finding no

reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings when she considered the

evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions

on issues of credibility); Broughton v. Department of Health & Human Services,

33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987) (same). As the administrative judge noted, the

question includes ordinary language and is plain on its face. ID at 7 -8. It asked

if he had been fired from “any job for any reason.” IAF, Tab 8 at 209. We agree

that the appellant’s purported interpretation of the OF-306 question was

unreasonable and implausible.

¶13 We also find no merit to the appellant’s suggestion that, if the question was

asking about all jobs, the inclusion of the word “Federal” was superfluous. PFR

File, Tab 6 at 6-7. The question clearly asked if the appellant had “been fired

from any job . . . or . . . debarred from Federal employment.” IAF, Tab 8 at 209,

212 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the appellant has failed to provide a reason

for disturbing the administrative judge’s finding of intent.

¶14 The appellant next suggests that the administrative judge should have

treated his appeal as a chapter 75 action and mitigated his removal to a lesser

penalty. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-9. This argument also fails.

¶15 Our reviewing court analyzed the interplay between the statutory appeal

rights of tenured Federal employees for adverse actions and OPM’s suitability

regulations in Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court

6

concluded that an “employee,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1), had the right

to appeal an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) even if that adverse action

stemmed from a negative suitability determination by OPM. Archuleta, 786 F.3d

at 1347-51; see Aguzie v. Office of Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R. 64,

¶¶ 25-31 (2011) (reaching the same result). In such cases, the court found that

the Board must conduct an independent review of OPM’s penalty in light of the

relevant Douglas factors. Archuleta, 786 F.3d at 1352-53; see Aguzie,

116 M.S.P.R. 64, ¶¶ 33-34; see also Douglas v. Veterans Administration,

5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981) (listing factors relevant to a determination of the

appropriateness of a penalty). In reaching these conclusions, the court reasoned

that Congress could have, but had not, excluded suitability-based removals from

the coverage of chapter 75. Archuleta, 786 F.3d at 1348, 1351. However,

Congress has since amended the relevant statute to do just that.

¶16 Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

(NDAA for Fiscal Year 2016), Pub. L. No. 114-92, section 1086(f)(9), 129 Stat.

726, 1010 (2015), an appealable adverse action does not include “a suitability

action taken by [OPM] under regulations prescribed by [OPM], subject to the

rules prescribed by the President under this title for the administration of the

competitive service.” 2 5 U.S.C. § 7512(F). Accordingly, when OPM makes a

suitability determination pursuant to its regulations, as it did here, the Board does

not have the authority to adjudicate the matter as a chapter 75 adverse action,

2

The Act refers to actions taken by the “Office,” without identifying the office in

question. We have reviewed the legislative history, but have similarly been unable to

find any definition. See Legislative Intent and Joint Explanatory Statement to

Accompany S. 1356, Pub. L. No. 114-92, 114th Cong., 1st Sess., 750 (Comm. Print

2015). However, “Office” is used elsewhere in chapter 75 to refer to OPM. 5 U.S.C.

§§ 7511(b)(2)(B), (c). Therefore, we assume that it has the same meaning here. See

Norman J. Singer, 2A Statutes & Statutory Construction § 47:16, at 265, 272 (6th ed.

2000) (explaining that an unclear word can be assumed to have the same meaning as

clearly provided for elsewhere in a statute).

7

even if the appellant is a tenured Federal employee. 3 Instead, the Board’s

jurisdiction over a negative suitability determination is limited to that provided

under 5 C.F.R. § 731.501, which does not extend to reviewing or modifying the

ultimate action taken as a result of a suitability determination. See Folio v.

Department of Homeland Security, 402 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir.

2005). Because the administrative judge sustained only one of the two charges,

she properly remanded the matter for OPM to decide whether the actions taken

are still appropriate. 4 See id. at 1355 (observing that, under 5 C.F.R. § 731.501,

the Board must remand the suitability action to OPM if it sustains one or more,

but not all, of the charges).

ORDER

¶17 We REMAND this appeal to OPM pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 731.501(b)(2) to

determine whether the suitability actions taken are appropriate based on the

sustained charge.

3

Even if 5 U.S.C. § 7512(F) did not explicitly preclude us from addressing OPM’s

negative suitability determination under chapter 75, the record demonstrates that the

appellant was serving an initial 1-year probationary period in the competitive service.

IAF, Tab 8 at 11, 105. Thus, he was not an “employee” with chapter 75 Board appeal

rights. See 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A). Therefore, we do not address any question

concerning the retroactivity of 5 U.S.C. § 7512(F) to the circumstances at hand, in

which the misconduct occurred prior to the November 25, 2015 enactment of the NDAA

for Fiscal Year 2016, but OPM took its suitability action after its enactment. See Pub.

L. No. 114-92, 129 Stat. 726 (reflecting the date of enactment). Given the appellant’s

status as a probationary appointee without chapter 75 appeal rights, any concerns about

potential retroactivity cannot change the outcome here.

4

In his reply brief, the appellant mistakenly asserts that OPM missed the deadline for

complying with the administrative judge’s instructions to decide whether the suitability

actions taken are still appropriate. PFR File, Tab 6 at 5. In fact, the admini strative

judge instructed OPM to act within 30 days of the initial decision becoming final. ID

at 9-10. Because the appellant filed a timely petition for review, the initial decision is

not yet final. Id.; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(a).

8

¶18 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board i n this

appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113 ( 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.113).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5

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 b elow 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).

5

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.

9

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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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

10

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

11

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 a ny court of appeals of

competent jurisdiction. 6 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 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

6

The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,

132 Stat. 1510.

12

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.

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

FOR THE BOARD:

/s/

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.