John W. Springfield v. Department of the Navy
Background
- Appellant was a Boatswain Mate with Military Sealift Command; agency issued a removal notice (for stealing merchandise from a Naval Exchange in Japan) on Nov. 3, 2015, effective Nov. 7, 2015.
- The appellant resigned on Nov. 6, 2015, after the agency issued the removal notice.
- Appellant filed an MSPB appeal challenging the removal; agency moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction arguing the resignation was voluntary.
- The administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the appellant failed to make nonfrivolous allegations that his resignation was coerced.
- The Board denied the petition for review, affirmed the dismissal, and explained standards for involuntary resignation, nexus between off-duty misconduct and efficiency of the service, and the nonfrivolous-allegation threshold for a jurisdictional hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board has jurisdiction because the resignation was involuntary/coerced | Resignation was forced after agency issued removal notice; agency knew or should have known removal could not be sustained | Resignation was voluntary; agency properly issued removal notice and had reasonable grounds to threaten removal | Held: No jurisdiction — appellant failed to make nonfrivolous allegations of coercion; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether agency could reasonably establish nexus between off-duty theft and efficiency of the service | Theft was off-duty and unrelated to job; therefore agency could not reasonably establish nexus and threat was baseless | Agency argued established precedent and factual bases support nexus (loss of trust/confidence, effect on mission) | Held: Appellant’s bare assertions insufficient; Board found established lines of precedent where theft can show nexus; appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege lack of reasonable basis for nexus |
| Whether bad advice from appellant’s representative renders resignation coerced by agency | Representative told appellant to resign to preserve federal employment prospects, so resignation was effectively coerced | Board/agency argue appellant is responsible for actions of his chosen representative; counsel’s advice does not convert resignation into agency coercion | Held: Advice of chosen representative does not establish agency coercion; appellant bears responsibility for representative’s errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security, 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (nonfrivolous-allegation standard entitles appellant to a jurisdictional hearing on involuntary resignation; must later prove jurisdiction by preponderance)
- D.E. v. Department of the Navy, 721 F.2d 1165 (9th Cir. 1983) (in an actual removal, relying solely on a presumption of nexus from egregious off-duty misconduct may be insufficient to prove adverse impact on efficiency of the service)