Leonard Anthony Szymborski v. Department of the Army
Background
- Appellant (series 1101 Contract Management Specialist) entered a rotational overseas assignment with a written agreement requiring him to apply for and accept the first valid U.S. assignment offer before tour end.
- Shortly before his tour ended in 2015, he received a CPAC-verified "VALID job offer" to a series 1102 Contract Specialist position in Bremerton, WA under the Priority Placement Program; he declined, claiming he was not qualified.
- Agency proposed removal for failing to comply with the rotational agreement; after administrative review confirmed he was "well qualified," the agency sustained removal effective June 1, 2015; the appellant retired shortly before that date and appealed.
- Parties limited the dispute to whether the agency proved the charge (refusal of a valid reassignment); no hearing was requested, and the administrative judge decided on the written record.
- The administrative judge applied the Ketterer burden-shifting framework for directed reassignment refusals, found the agency proved its prima facie case and that appellant failed to rebut, and sustained the removal; the Board denied review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency proved removal based on appellant's refusal to accept a valid directed reassignment | Szymborski: He lacked required qualifications for the 1102 position, so the offer was not valid | Army/CPAC: Agency officials reviewed credentials per policy, found him well qualified, and the offer was valid | The Board affirmed: agency met prima facie case under Ketterer; appellant failed to show reassignment lacked a solid or substantial basis in personnel practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobert v. Miller, 800 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reaffirming Ketterer framework for directed reassignment refusals)
- Ketterer v. Department of Agriculture, 2 M.S.P.R. 294 (M.S.P.B. 1980) (establishes burden-shifting test for reassignment/refusal cases)
- Umshler v. Department of the Interior, 44 M.S.P.R. 628 (M.S.P.B. 1990) (clarifies ultimate burden of persuasion remains with agency)
- White v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 95 M.S.P.R. 299 (M.S.P.B. 2003) (Board may reweigh evidence when no hearing is held)
- Norton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 248 (M.S.P.B. 2009) (retirement before effective removal date does not divest Board jurisdiction)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court enforces strict filing deadlines for appeals to the Federal Circuit)