Cynthia Echeverria v. Department of Homeland Security, DC-0752-21-0076-I-1

Cynthia Echeverria, a supervisor at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was suspended for 15 days for conduct deemed unbecoming of a supervisor.
Echeverria appealed her suspension to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing that the administrative judge made errors in evaluating the credibility of evidence and in applying the correct legal standard.
The initial decision by the administrative judge sustained her suspension, finding that the agency proved the charged misconduct and that the penalty was reasonable.
On petition for review, Echeverria maintained the errors impacted the findings about her conduct and the appropriateness of the penalty.
The MSPB reviewed whether any substantial error or new material evidence justified overturning the initial decision.
The Board concluded no such basis existed and affirmed the initial decision as its final order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Error in credibility determinations	Judge erred in evaluating evidence	Evidence was properly evaluated	No error; judge’s credibility findings upheld
Misapplication of legal standard	Wrong standard used for supervisors	Standard was not outcome determinative	Any error in standard was harmless
Proof of conduct unbecoming a supervisor	Agency did not meet burden	Misconduct established	Agency sufficiently established conduct occurred
Reasonableness of penalty	Penalty not reasonable	Penalty was proportionate	Penalty deemed reasonable under the circumstances

Scheffler v. Department of the Army, 117 M.S.P.R. 499 (2012) (articulates the agency’s burden to prove underlying conduct for a charge of conduct unbecoming)
Crouse v. Department of the Treasury, 75 M.S.P.R. 57 (1997) (establishes essential elements for charges involving supervisory misconduct)
Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281 (1984) (adjudicatory error not prejudicial to substantive rights does not justify reversal)