Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 1 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`GARY R. AMASON,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
`Respondent
`______________________
`
`2021-1800
`______________________
`
`Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
`Board in No. DA-0752-19-0523-I-2.
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 2, 2024
`______________________
`
`JAMES M. ANDERSEN, Houston, TX, for petitioner.
`
`
` AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation
`Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
`tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
`REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
`PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
`______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 2 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`2
`
`AMASON v. USPS
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Gary R. Amason petitions for review of a Merit Systems
`Protection Board (“Board”) decision affirming the United
`States Postal Service’s reduction of his grade and pay.
`Amason v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. DA-0752-19-0523-I-2,
`2021 WL 533568 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 8, 2021) (“Decision”)
`(J.A. 1–28).1 We affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`I.
`Mr. Amason was employed with the United States
`Postal Service (“Postal Service”) as an EAS 21 Postmaster
`at the Webster Post Office (“WPO”) in Webster, Texas. De-
`cision at 2; J.A. 36. Postmasters are responsible for over-
`seeing the daily operations of a post office, including the
`timely delivery of mail. Decision at 2; J.A. 36; J.A. 182–83.
`In November 2018, the Postal Service Office of Inspec-
`tor General (“OIG”) investigated WPO’s scanning proce-
`dures, revealing that over 1,000 packages were improperly
`scanned as delivered in September 2018 when the pack-
`ages actually remained within the WPO. Decision at 2;
`J.A. 169–70.
`In February 2019, based on a management referral
`from the OIG, Manager of Post Office Operations Sunny
`Sunny also investigated the improper scans. Decision at 2;
`J.A. 172–73. Based on the results of his investigation, on
`April 10, 2019, Mr. Sunny issued a notice of proposed re-
`duction in grade and pay to Mr. Amason based on “unac-
`ceptable
`conduct”
`of
`instructing
`staff
`to make
`inappropriate scans of packages or misrepresent the status
`of packages, indicating they had been delivered or
`
`
`1 Because the reported version of the Board’s deci-
`sion is not paginated, citations in this opinion are to the
`version of the Board’s decision included in the Joint Appen-
`dix. For example, Decision at 1 is found at J.A. 1.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 3 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`AMASON v. USPS
`
`3
`
`available for pickup when they were not. Decision at 2–3;
`J.A. 36. The letter proposed a reduction in grade and pay
`from Postmaster, EAS 21 with a salary of $93,461.00, to
`Supervisor, EAS 17 with a salary of $81,234.00. J.A. 38.
`The letter also explained that Mr. Amason’s actions vio-
`lated the Postal Service’s rules and regulations, quoting
`multiple provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations
`Manual. J.A. 38.
`On August 29, 2019, Deciding Official Myron Kelly is-
`sued a letter of decision, sustaining the charge and reduc-
`ing Mr. Amason’s grade and pay, effective September 5,
`2019. Decision at 3; J.A. 40–44. Mr. Amason appealed the
`decision to the Board. Decision at 1; J.A. 29–34.
`On February 8, 2021, the administrative judge af-
`firmed the Postal Service’s decision. Decision at 1–20. The
`administrative judge found that the Postal Service proved
`its charge by preponderant evidence. Id. at 3–6. The ad-
`ministrative judge also found that Mr. Amason failed to es-
`tablish a due process claim, that there is a nexus between
`the misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and that
`the penalty of demotion is reasonable. Id. at 17–20. On
`March 15, 2021, the administrative judge’s decision be-
`came the Board’s final decision. Id. at 20.
`Mr. Amason appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`A.
`“We affirm a decision of the Board unless it is found to
`be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
`wise not in accordance with law; obtained without proce-
`dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
`followed; or unsupported by substantial evidence.” Ford-
`Clifton v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 661 F.3d 655, 658–59
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)). “We ‘must re-
`verse a decision of the Board if it . . . is not in accordance
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 4 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`4
`
`AMASON v. USPS
`
`with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the
`Fifth Amendment . . . .’” Ward v. U.S. Postal Serv., 634
`F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (first alteration in origi-
`nal) (quoting Blank v. Dep’t of the Army, 247 F.3d 1225,
`1228 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`
`B.
`On appeal, Mr. Amason argues that the Postal Ser-
`vice’s action violated his due process rights, Appellant’s
`Br. 8, 11–12; see also id. at 13–23, and that there was no
`substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision, id. at
`8, 29–30. We address each argument in turn.
`Regarding due process, Mr. Amason argues that nei-
`ther the Board nor the Postal Service cited to “any written
`document, including but not limited to any USPS Manage-
`ment Directive, USPS Manual, USPS Rule, USPS Proce-
`dure, Regulation in the United States Code of Federal
`Regulation, or any statute in the United States Code[ ]as
`the basis for any discipline issued against [him].” Id. at 15.
`We find this argument unpersuasive. The April 2019 Let-
`ter cites several provisions of the Employee and Labor Re-
`lations Manual as the basis for the reduction in pay and
`grade, and Mr. Amason does not contest that the Employee
`and Labor Relations Manual constitutes a part of the
`Postal Service’s regulations. J.A. 38; Appellant’s Br. 15; see
`also 39 C.F.R. § 211.2(a)(2) (“The regulations of the Postal
`Service consist of . . . the Employee and Labor Relations
`Manual . . . .”). The cited provisions of the Employee and
`Labor Relations Manual expect employees to “be loyal to
`the United States government and uphold the policies and
`regulations of the Postal Service,” to “discharge their as-
`signed duties conscientiously and effectively,” and to be
`“honest, reliable, trustworthy, courteous, and of good char-
`acter and reputation.” J.A. 38 (emphases added) (citing
`Employee and Labor Relations Manual §§ 665.11, 665.13,
`665.16). Because Mr. Amason was charged with instruct-
`ing his staff to make misrepresentations as to the status of
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 5 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`AMASON v. USPS
`
`5
`
`packages, J.A. 36, an action that is inherently dishonest,
`the cited sections of the Employee and Labor Relations
`Manual provided sufficient notice. See J.A. 38 (noting the
`lack of integrity in Mr. Amason’s actions). Therefore, the
`April 2019 Letter, citing relevant provisions of the Em-
`ployee and Labor Relations Manual, satisfied the due pro-
`cess requirement that “an employee be given notice of the
`charges against him in sufficient detail to allow the em-
`ployee to make an informed reply.” Do v. Dep’t of Hous. &
`Urb. Dev., 913 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations
`omitted).
`Furthermore, even if we take as true Mr. Amason’s al-
`legation that the Postal Service had no scanning practices
`and procedures at the time of his conduct, Appellant’s Br.
`17, Mr. Amason still owed a duty to be honest, reliable, and
`trustworthy under the provisions of the Employee and La-
`bor Relations Manual discussed above. Inappropriate
`scans of packages violate this duty. Accordingly, we con-
`clude that the Board did not err and that Mr. Amason has
`failed to establish a due process violation.
`C.
`Mr. Amason also argues that the Board’s findings on
`nexus and the reasonableness of the penalty are not sup-
`ported by substantial evidence. See Appellant’s Br. 29–30;
`see also id. at 23–28. We disagree.
`Regarding nexus, the Board found the nexus “clear
`where, as here, the agency has established by preponder-
`ant evidence that the appellant, as Postmaster, instructed
`Postal employees to misrepresent the status of mail
`through improper scanning.” Decision at 18. Because Mr.
`Amason acted inappropriately in his capacity as a Post-
`master, there was substantial evidence to support a finding
`of nexus because there was a “direct connection” between
`the efficiency of the service and Mr. Amason’s misconduct.
`Parker v. U.S. Postal Serv., 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
`1987). The nexus between the “falsification of government
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 6 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`6
`
`AMASON v. USPS
`
`records”—like Post Service’s records of the status of pack-
`ages—and the “efficiency of the service [is] ‘obvious on the
`face of the facts.’” Gonzales v. Def. Logistics Agency, 772
`F.2d 887, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Phillips v. Ber-
`gland, 586 F.2d 1007, 1011 (4th Cir. 1978) and citing Hayes
`v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1539 & n.3 (Fed. Cir.
`1984)). Whether Mr. Amason violated any criminal statute
`or engaged in any other egregious conduct is irrelevant.
`See Appellant’s Br. 26. The record shows that Mr. Ama-
`son’s actions negatively impacted the efficiency of the
`Postal Service by resulting in numerous customer com-
`plaints. J.A. 96–152. Therefore, we find the Board’s find-
`ing on nexus to be supported by substantial evidence.
`We further conclude that substantial evidence sup-
`ports the Board’s finding that the penalty of demotion is
`reasonable. Decision at 18–20. The August 2019 Decision
`Letter and Mr. Kelly’s declaration include thorough anal-
`yses of the Douglas factors and support this finding. See
`J.A. 41–42; J.A. 182–85. Mr. Amason argues that his pen-
`alty is inconsistent with the penalty imposed on others, cit-
`ing to one example when another postmaster in Texas was
`given a letter of reprimand in lieu of a demotion under a
`similar charge. Appellant’s Br. 30; see also J.A. 550–53.
`However, in that case, only about 100 packages were found
`to be mis-scanned, and none of the employees identified the
`reprimanded postmaster as the official that gave them the
`instruction to perform improper scans. J.A. 550–51. Here,
`over 1,000 packages were improperly scanned, Decision at
`2; J.A. 89–91, and several employees stated that Mr. Ama-
`son instructed them to make the improper scans on multi-
`ple occasions. See, e.g., J.A. 81–82; J.A. 180–81; J.A. 84;
`J.A. 87. Because the other postmaster’s conduct was not
`analogous, his reprimand does not establish that Mr. Ama-
`son received a penalty inconsistent with other employees
`in similar circumstances.
`Mr. Amason also contends that the offense was “very
`minor” compared to the amount of mail that WPO
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1800 Document: 96 Page: 7 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`AMASON v. USPS
`
`7
`
`processes and delivers and that the Postal Service has else-
`where conceded that the improper scanning resulted in
`nothing more than “an inconvenience.” Appellant’s Br. 27,
`30. The Board rejected this argument, instead finding that
`Mr. Kelly properly found Mr. Amason’s misconduct to be
`serious, noting that it violated customers’ trust and was at
`odds with his obligation as a postmaster. See Decision at
`19–20; J.A. 41 ¶ 2; J.A. 183 ¶ 9a. The Board also explained
`that improper scans resulted in numerous customer com-
`plaints regarding inaccurate tracking information and con-
`fusion as to the location of their mail. Decision at 19–20;
`see also J.A. 41 ¶ 7; J.A. 184 ¶ 9c; J.A. 96–152. We see no
`error in the Board’s analysis.
`Mr. Amason additionally argues that Mr. Kelly’s find-
`ing of no hope of rehabilitation was not supported by sub-
`stantial evidence, citing his long tenure as a Postal Service
`employee without prior discipline. Appellant’s Br. 30; see
`also id. at 26–27. But the Board concluded that Mr. Kelly
`considered these factors but found them outweighed by the
`seriousness of Mr. Amason’s conduct, particularly in light
`of his supervisory role. Decision at 19; J.A. 41 ¶¶ 3–4;
`J.A. 184–85 ¶¶ 9d, 9i. Here too, we do not see any error in
`the Board’s analysis.
`We “will not disturb a choice of penalty within the
`agency’s discretion unless the severity of the agency’s ac-
`tion appears totally unwarranted in light of all the factors.”
`Mings v. Dep’t of Just., 813 F.2d 384, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
`that the penalty is reasonable, we will not disturb it.
`III. CONCLUSION
`We have considered Mr. Amason’s remaining argu-
`ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
`sons, we affirm the Board’s decision.
`AFFIRMED
`
`