TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John O. Ess v. Department of the Navy

Ess v. Dep't of the Navy, 852 F.2d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 28, 1988
Docket
No. 88-3026
Citations
852 F.2d 12941988 WL 655281988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8705
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

852 F.2d 1294

Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. John O. ESS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the NAVY, Respondent.

No. 88-3026.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 28, 1988.

Before ARCHER, MAYER and MICHEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), Docket No. DC07528710173, sustaining the thirty-day suspension imposed on petitioner for dereliction of duty, unprofessional conduct, refusal to carry out a direct order, disrespectful conduct and failure to follow instructions, is affirmed.

2

In a comprehensive analysis of the testimony and other evidence, the administrative judge (AJ) determined in her initial decision, which became the final decision of the board, see 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1201.113(b), that five of the seven specifications against petitioner were established by a preponderance of the evidence and that this evidence required that the five charges be sustained. Further, the AJ found that the penalty was reasonable and promoted the efficiency of the service, and that it was arrived at after consideration of the appropriate Douglas factors.

3

Applying our standard of review as set forth in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703 (c) (1982), the board's decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by substantial evidence. Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed.Cir.1984). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the initial decision of the AJ dated April 28, 1987.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hayes v. Dep't of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 568

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list