GovernmentExecutive.com

The Postal Service can fire an employee who forged his supervisor's signature on medical forms, despite the employee's nine-year clean disciplinary record, the Merit Systems Protection Board found recently.

After an extended argument with his supervisors over whether he had a disability severe enough to limit him from completing all his job responsibilities, Kevin Adam, a PS-3 level custodian for the Postal Service, resorted to forging a signature on a medical documentation processing request form. But he spelled his supervisor's name wrong.

Another supervisor noticed the misspelling and recognized that the handwriting did not match that of Tracye Trent-Cashdollar, the supervisor who allegedly signed the paperwork. Trent-Cashdollar confirmed that she hadn't seen the form, and the Postal Service fired Adam in September 2002.

An administrative judge later mitigated Adam's punishment to a seven-day suspension. Though he purposefully handed in forged forms, he had "nothing to gain" from the transgression and was "unlikely to commit this particular type of misconduct again," the judge found. He had also worked nine years for the Postal Service without any disciplinary problems, the judge noted.

But the Postal Service challenged the administrative judge's decision before MSPB, and the board found in favor of agency officials.

When settling on a punishment for Adam, Postal Service officials considered his clean disciplinary record, the board said in its July 12 opinion. But the officials also were correct in arguing that they expect employees to be "honest and trustworthy in light of [the Postal Service's] mission to provide reliable and efficient service to its customers."

The agency officials argued that Adam "had for some time not been performing the full range of his duties and, when questioned by his supervisors on the matter, had intentionally tried to deceive them by attempting to convince them that he had permission . . . because of an alleged medical condition."

Adam also had an "arrogant attitude" during his hearing and failed to express any remorse for forging the signature, the Postal Service officials noted.

MSPB sided with the agency officials, upholding the decision to fire Adam rather than suspend him for seven days.

Kevin D. Adam v. U.S. Postal Service, Merit Systems Protection Board (CH-0752-03-0042-I-1), July 12, 2004

Payback

The Army Corps of Engineers mistakenly reimbursed a new employee for shipping her possessions as part of a 20-mile move, but the agency doesn't need to demand the money back, the Board of Contract Appeals decided last week.

When the Army Corps offered Patricia Smith a job in its Little Rock, Ark., district office, she moved from Pine Bluff, Ark., which is 46 miles away from Little Rock, to a home 26 miles away from her new office. The Army Corps offered to reimburse Smith, who was not working for the government at the time she was hired, for the shipment of belongings to her new home.

But after the agency had already paid Smith's expenses for the shipments, an Army Corps official decided that she should not have been reimbursed, and asked for the money back. The short-distance move provisions in the Defense Department's Joint Travel Regulations are "clearly" meant for employees transferring from one office to another rather than for new employees, the official determined.

Travel regulations prevent Defense officials from authorizing reimbursements for new federal appointees moving less than 50 miles to begin a job, the board said in a July 15 ruling. Smith is therefore obligated to pay the Army Corps back, the board decided.

But agency officials could take pity on Smith and decide that demanding repayment "would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States," the board noted. In deciding whether to waive the repayment requirement, the Army Corps might want to consider that Smith "moved under orders which appeared valid," the board stated.

Patricia Smith v. Army Corps of Engineers, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (16417-RELO), July 15, 2004

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.