Shannon L. Boppre v. Department of the Interior
Background
- Boppre, a GS-5 Telecommunications Equipment Operator with the Turtle Mountain Agency (BIA), faced removal from Federal service.
- Agency proposed removal on Apr 8, 2014 based on four charges: misuse of a Government charge card, failure to follow instructions, delinquency on the charge card, and off-duty criminal misconduct.
- During TDY planning for Standing Rock (Dec 27, 2013–Jan 7, 2014), Boppre made cash withdrawals totaling $260; a later pattern led to per diem overages and card suspension.
- From Dec 21–24, 2013, and Jan 2–5, 2013, Boppre made multiple cash withdrawals; by Jan 2013 the per diem cap had been exceeded and a delinquency followed.
- A June 2014 hearing resulted in findings that the agency proved the charges by preponderant evidence and imposed removal; this was affirmed on review.
- Overall, the Board considered the late travel authorization not harmful error and upheld the agency’s management discretion in the penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the four charges were proven by preponderant evidence | Boppre argues lack of intent and policy interpretation undermines charges | Agency asserts admissions and policy prohibitions support charges | Charges sustained; removal affirmed. |
| Whether the failure to follow instructions was proven | Supervisor's later permission created ambiguity; documentation weak | Evidence showed explicit instruction not to withdraw cash; unsubstantiated alternative | Charge sustained. |
| Whether delinquency on the charge card was proven | Admitted delinquency but questioned timing and impact | Delinquency established by 30+ days past due balance | Charge sustained. |
| Whether off-duty criminal misconduct was proven | Bank errors, not dishonesty, caused misdemeanor convictions | Charge covered pleaded guilty misdemeanors; conduct showed financial irresponsibility | Charge sustained. |
| Whether late travel authorization constitutes harmful error affecting penalty | Delay in travel authorization undermines per diem limits and process | Late authorization does not excuse misconduct and is not harmful error | Not harmful error; penalty within discretion. |
| Whether retaliation allegation warrants relief | Removal retaliation for stating travel policy violation | No new material evidence; not timely raised; not persuasive | Not considered as basis for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatman v. Department of Justice, 66 M.S.P.R. 58 (1994) (harmful error analysis for travel-related procedures)
- Baracker v. Department of the Interior, 70 M.S.P.R. 594 (1996) (no implied requirement of intent for card-use charges)
- Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981) (Douglas analysis underpins penalty considerations)
- Alberto v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 98 M.S.P.R. 50 (2004) (rehabilitation considerations in misconduct)
- Hamilton v. Department of Homeland Security, 117 M.S.P.R. 384 (2012) (factor weighting in penalty decisions)