IN RE DFAS HEARING v. Department of Defense
Background
- Seven DFAS employees in Rome, NY appealed their placement in 6 nonconsecutive furlough days (FY2013); appeals were consolidated and a hearing was held.
- Appellants argued they were paid from a Working Capital Fund (WCF) with a positive balance and therefore should not have been furloughed; they also argued DFAS Rome was the most cost-effective site.
- Agency submitted declarations and documents showing the furlough was a reasonable management response to fiscal constraints and that exemptions were available but not improperly denied. The deciding official testified at hearing.
- The administrative judge found the agency met its burden: the furlough promoted efficiency, was applied fairly, and the agency may consider its budget holistically despite WCF funding.
- Two appellants (Sambor and Wiatr) petitioned for review, arguing the judge abused discretion by denying depositions of senior declarants and by accepting boilerplate declarations without live testimony. The Board treated those procedural complaints as abuse-of-discretion claims.
- The Board denied the petition for review, affirming the initial decision: appellants failed to show the judge abused discretion or that additional discovery would have produced contested evidence undermining the declarations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCF-funded employees may be furloughed | Sambor/Wiatr: salaries came from WCF with positive balance, so furlough was improper | DFAS: furlough is a reasonable management solution to agency-wide fiscal restrictions; funding may be considered holistically | Held: Agency need not show funds saved left subordinate units; furlough permissible despite WCF funding (Einboden framework) |
| Whether agency had to adopt appellants’ proposed alternatives to avoid furlough | Appellants: agency refused an alternative plan conveyed via union | DFAS: agency need not adopt proposed alternatives; management discretion over priorities | Held: Agency not required to adopt alternatives; Board will not second-guess mission/priorities |
| Whether administrative judge abused discretion by denying depositions and limiting discovery | Appellants: denial prevented meaningful challenge to declarants and violated due process | Agency: discovery limited to matters relevant to whether furlough promoted efficiency; declarants’ statements were uncontested; deciding official testified | Held: No abuse of discretion; appellants did not show proposed questions would uncover evidence to contest declarations |
| Whether agency’s declarations were improper boilerplate violating discovery rules | Appellants: declarations were boilerplate and should be excluded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 | Agency/Board: Rule 37 is instructive only; uncontested sworn declarations prove asserted facts | Held: Declarations admissible and uncontested; Board affirms initial decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Einboden v. Dep’t of the Navy, 802 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming that WCF funding does not preclude furlough where agency reasonably expects funding reductions)
- Einboden v. Dep’t of the Navy, 122 M.S.P.R. 302 (MSPB 2015) (Board: focus is whether furlough is a reasonable management solution; agency may view budget holistically)
- Chandler v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 120 M.S.P.R. 163 (MSPB 2013) (agency must show furlough promoted efficiency and was applied fairly)
- Lopez v. Dep’t of the Navy, 121 M.S.P.R. 647 (MSPB 2014) (Board will not second-guess agency’s assessment of mission requirements or chosen measures to avoid deficits)