Christine Davis v. Office of Personnel Management
Background
- Christine Davis, a GS-11 Investigator, was removed effective October 31, 2014; agency alleged five charges: (1) failure to timely pay Government travel card (GTC) balance; (2) misuse of GTC; (3) submitting inaccurate time reports; (4) lack of candor in an investigatory interview; and (5) willful misuse of a Government-owned vehicle (GOV).
- Agency relied on GTC statements, investigative interview notes, GOV toll/mileage/toll-tag records, timecards, and the appellant’s statements; appellant denied the misconduct and raised a due-process claim about a prior verbal counseling not being in the proposal.
- Administrative judge held a hearing, found the appellant not credible on key points, sustained all five charges (but dismissed two GOV specifications), and imposed removal as a reasonable penalty.
- On petition for review, Davis renewed denials and challenged credibility findings, the due-process claim, and the reasonableness of removal; the Board denied review and affirmed the initial decision (with supplemental analysis of the lack-of-candor charge).
- The Board found sufficient nexus to the efficiency of the service, credited the agency’s documentary evidence and witness testimony, and concluded removal was within the range of reasonable penalties given the position of trust and prior warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Davis’s Argument | OPM’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to timely pay GTC balances | She paid as funds arrived and kept account current; disputes finding | Records and appellant admissions show balances not paid in full within required 25 days | Sustained — appellant conceded nonpayment; evidence supports charge |
| 2. Misuse of GTC for personal/family meals | Denies misuse; says charges are incorrect and explanations were misunderstood | Transaction records and investigator testimony show personal meals charged; appellant’s denials not credible | Sustained — AJ credibility findings credited; misuse proven |
| 3. Inaccurate time reports | She actually worked the hours and provided supporting reports | Timecards, documentation, and inconsistencies show inaccurate reporting; appellant lacked credibility | Sustained — AJ credited agency records and appellant’s inconsistent testimony |
| 4. Lack of candor in investigatory interview | Statements were due to frustration; she answered questions as asked | Appellant gave false/incomplete answers about proven underlying misconduct | Sustained — underlying misconduct proven and AJ found knowingly false statements |
| 5. Willful misuse of GOV | Used GOV for official work; denies willfulness | Toll, mileage, refueling records and phone/location data show nonofficial travel and willful/reckless use | Sustained (four of six specifications) — evidence and credibility findings support misuse |
| Penalty (Removal) | Removal is excessive given fully successful service and disputed facts | Removal reasonable given trust position, prior notice and seriousness of misconduct | Held reasonable — Board defers to agency’s Douglas-factor analysis and upholds removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Department of the Air Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 640 (Board 2014) (admission to a charge can suffice as proof)
- Hillen v. Department of the Army, 35 M.S.P.R. 453 (1987) (factors for resolving credibility disputes)
- Fargnoli v. Department of Commerce, 123 M.S.P.R. 330 (2016) (elements required to sustain lack of candor: incorrect/incomplete statement and knowledge)
- Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (deference to AJ credibility determinations based on demeanor)
- Little v. Department of Transportation, 112 M.S.P.R. 224 (2009) (sustaining lack of candor when underlying misconduct is proven)
- Burroughs v. Department of the Army, 918 F.2d 170 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (one or more proven specifications can sustain a charge supported by multiple events)