Cathedral M. Henderson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2016 MSPB 29

Appellant Cathedral M. Henderson, a GS-13 Program Analyst at VA Health Eligibility Center, was indicted by a federal grand jury on July 8, 2015 for 50 counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1035 alleging he ordered employees to falsify completion/refusal of over 2,700 consults for veterans.
On July 22, 2015 the agency proposed an indefinite suspension, citing reasonable cause to believe a crime punishable by imprisonment had been committed; appellant had 7 days to respond and denied the charges.
The agency imposed the indefinite suspension effective August 9, 2015, to remain until completion of the related judicial proceedings.
Appellant appealed to the MSPB; he waived a hearing after the parties agreed there were no factual disputes, and the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming the suspension.
On petition for review, appellant challenged only the finding that the agency had reasonable cause based solely on the indictment and also asserted a constitutional due process violation for inadequate notice/response opportunity.
The Board denied review, holding that the grand jury indictment established reasonable cause and that the agency afforded constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Agency's Argument	Held
Whether indictment alone supplies "reasonable cause" to impose indefinite suspension	Indictment insufficient where agency provided the only evidence to grand jury; need third‑party corroboration or law enforcement investigation	Indictment from grand jury is conclusive on probable cause and alone suffices	Held: Indictment alone establishes reasonable cause; suspension valid
Whether agency gave constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to respond	Agency failed to provide specific charges and meaningful opportunity; due process violated	Agency’s July 22 proposal described indictment, evidence, and gave at least 7 days to reply; decision considered appellant’s response	Held: Due process satisfied; notice and reply period adequate
Whether suspension had an ascertainable end and nexus to efficiency of service	(Not contested on review)	Agency suspended pending disposition of judicial proceedings; nexus to efficiency argued	Held: Suspension had ascertainable end, nexus, and was reasonable penalty
Whether statutory notice requirements under 5 U.S.C. § 7513 were violated	(Not pursued on review)	Agency invoked exception for reasonable cause to believe crime; provided required appeal info	Held: No violation of § 7513; administrative judge’s findings sustained

Dunnington v. Department of Justice, 956 F.2d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (grand jury indictment or preliminary judicial determination provides sufficient evidence of probable cause for employment suspension)
Dalton v. Department of Justice, 66 M.S.P.R. 429 (1995) (an agency may rely solely on a grand jury indictment to establish reasonable cause for suspension)
Hernandez v. Department of the Navy, 120 M.S.P.R. 14 (2013) (reasonable cause in indefinite suspension context equated with probable cause standard)
Rogers v. Department of Defense, 122 M.S.P.R. 671 (2015) (indefinite suspension over 14 days is an adverse action appealable to the Board)
Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security, 114 M.S.P.R. 318 (2010) (enumerating circumstances where indefinite suspension has been approved)
Dawson v. Department of Agriculture, 121 M.S.P.R. 495 (2014) (notice describing indictment can provide adequate prior notice of reason for suspension)
Barresi v. U.S. Postal Service, 65 M.S.P.R. 656 (1994) (due process requires notice of reasons giving rise to finding of reasonable cause when suspension is based on alleged serious crime)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (tenured public employees entitled to notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to respond)
Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court will strictly enforce statutory filing deadlines for appeals)