Jason G. Peters v. Department of the Interior
Background
- Appellant (Senior Law Enforcement Ranger, GS-11) was removed effective Sept. 22, 2014 for lack of candor (4 specs) and conduct unbecoming a law enforcement officer (1 spec) after statements during an OPR investigation of the July 6, 2013 Chariot Wildland Fire.
- The fire burned ~7,050 acres, destroyed structures, and caused ~$11 million in damage. Appellant’s Jeep burned at a campsite ~2 miles from the fire origin; appellant was one of the first to report the fire.
- Appellant’s initial report and later OPR interview conflicted about which fork of a Y-intersection he took; he ultimately admitted being in the fire burn area shortly before ignition but did not disclose that to his supervisor, the CalFire investigator, or in his official report and log.
- Agency charged that these omissions were intentional (lack of candor) and that his failure to provide useful assistance to CalFire hindered the investigation (conduct unbecoming).
- Appellant defended by claiming PTSD-related memory loss, alleged ex parte communications by the deciding official with CalFire (due process), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency proved lack of candor | Peters: omissions due to PTSD-related memory lapses; no deceptive intent | DOI: appellant gave incorrect/incomplete info and did so knowingly | Board: sustained lack of candor; credibility findings support knowing omission |
| Whether conduct unbecoming was proven | Peters: failure to disclose was memory-related, not misconduct | DOI: failure to assist CalFire hindered investigation and reflected poor judgment | Board: sustained conduct unbecoming for failing to provide useful guidance |
| Whether ex parte contact deprived due process | Peters: deciding official’s contact with CalFire was new/material and prejudicial | DOI: contact was limited to report format and cumulative; not relied upon | Board: no due process violation; contact was cumulative and not material |
| Whether removal was disability discrimination (Rehabilitation Act) | Peters: agency removed him because of PTSD (memory issues) | DOI: appellant was diagnosed after the incident; record shows detailed recall undermining memory claim | Board: appellant has PTSD but failed to prove disability caused omissions or that agency discriminated; removal penalty reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ludlum v. Department of Justice, 278 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (lack of candor requires element of deception)
- Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (deference to ALJ credibility findings based on witness demeanor)
- Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 179 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (factors for assessing whether ex parte information is new and material)
- Ward v. U.S. Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (deciding official’s reliance on new, material ex parte information may violate due process)