GovernmentExecutive.com

An Army equipment repairman failed to persuade the Merit Systems Protections Board that his supervisors demoted him because he tipped them off about a colleague's unethical behavior.

In March 1993, Santiago Salinas Jr., then a Wage Grade-07 level sandblaster in an Army engine cleaning shop, told agency investigators that his co-worker, Alfredo Rodriguez, faked an injury, spent work time on personal projects and misused food stamps. More than two years after the tip-off, the Army reassigned Salinas to a WG-05 level electrical equipment repair job.

Salinas subsequently filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, claiming that the Army demoted him in retaliation for telling investigators about Rodriguez's misbehavior. He also argued that his tips "ultimately served as a basis for a fraudulent workers' compensation claim" against Rodriguez, and that the investigators revealed him as the informer, violating a confidentiality agreement.

This improper revelation allegedly caused Salinas' co-workers to ridicule him, calling him names and threatening him with violence. OSC investigated, but found no evidence of whistleblower retaliation.

An MSPB administrative judge subsequently decided that Salinas lacked grounds to appeal the OSC's findings, because the information he provided Army investigators was not protected as a whistleblower disclosure. Salinas' statement to investigators did not reveal "a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority or a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety," the judge noted. The 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act applies only to disclosures in those categories.

Salinas asked the MSPB to review the administrative judge's decision, arguing that "implicit in his disclosure was a claim that the [Army] failed to adequately address the ongoing fraud being perpetrated by Rodriguez, which constituted an abuse of authority."

In an Aug. 27 ruling, the board said regardless of whether Salinas' tips to investigators were protected disclosures, he cannot prove that the tips resulted in his demotion. To prove whistleblower retaliation under the United States Code, Title 5, workers must show that supervisors knew about the disclosure, and that the alleged retaliation took place "within a period of time such that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action."

The Army demoted Salinas more than two years after he tipped off investigators - too long to assume any connection between the two incidents, the board ruled. Also, Salinas was one of 37 employees permanently reassigned, indicating that the Army did not single him out for demotion, MSPB said.

In addition, Salinas could not show that his supervisors would have had any motive to retaliate against him, since "the information he provided was of assistance to the investigation [of Rodriguez]," the board ruled.

Santiago Salinas Jr. v. Department of the Army, Merit Systems Protection Board (DA-1221-02-0284-W-1), Aug. 27, 2003

No Exceptions

At the Justice Department's request, new hire Roscoe Howard Jr. moved quickly from Lawrence, Kan., to Washington in the fall of 2001 to begin his job.

Because of the "imminent nature" of the work, he flew to Washington immediately following the department's orders, leaving his family behind in Kansas. His family joined him in June 2002. But the Justice Department declined to reimburse Howard for $589.48 worth of "miscellaneous" expenses in his family's move from Kansas to Washington. These expenses included tips for movers and the cost of a hotel stay.

Howard appealed the Justice Department's decision to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals, arguing that because "he was asked to and agreed to report for duty immediately, and because of his prior federal service," the department should pay his family's miscellaneous relocation expenses. Had the department given him more time to make the move, he could have driven east with his family and would have been eligible for reimbursement of hotel expenses, Howard claimed.

The board denied his request in an Aug. 28 ruling. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41, 302-1.10(f), family members of new hires are not eligible for a per diem or miscellaneous travel expenses.

"There are no exceptions of which we are aware for former federal employees or newly hired employees who respond to an agency request to assume their new duties immediately," the board ruled.

Roscoe Howard Jr. v. Department of Justice, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (16181-RELO), Aug. 28, 2003

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.