Notable Cases

A supervisor for a federal law enforcement agency was removed for alleged misconduct. After a full trial hearing with the MSPB (Chicago regional office), the initial decision upholds the removal. The decision was appealed to the full MSPB board. Decision: removal REVERSED, and the penalty was MITIGATED to a period of suspension. The client returned to duty and received nearly one-half years of back pay.

A Department of Justice federal law enforcement agent became a defendant in multiple federal civil lawsuits alleging constitutional civil rights violations against multiple criminal defendants. These lawsuits accused the client of intentionally committing civil rights violations pursuant to a long-term undercover drug operation spanning several months. The allegations included conspiracy with other officers and a confidential informant.

The client was indicted by a federal grand jury for civil rights violations related to the federal civil lawsuits. The client was acquitted of all counts by a federal jury pursuant to a five-week trial.

This firm was part of the legal defense team representing the Client. Each of the federal civil lawsuits was subsequently DISMISSED. Client returned to full duty with the agency.

The client, with over 30 years of federal service, was employed with the Department of Justice, ATF&E. The client received a proposed notice of removal from federal service from the agency regarding serious allegations of misconduct. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency sustains the removal action, and the client is removed from federal service.

An appeal to the MSPB is filed on the client’s behalf. The parties engage in written discovery and depositions. Through negotiations, the agency RESCINDED the removal action, and the client retired from federal service.

The client, a Federal Air Marshal with TSA, was investigated by the agency for alleged misconduct. The agency first made a preliminary determination to suspend the client’s access to classified information (otherwise known as top-secret clearance). The agency then made a final determination to revoke the client’s top-secret clearance.

Pursuant to the agency’s decision to make that decision final, an appeal was filed to the Department of Homeland Security, Security Appeals Board (SAB). After submitting the briefing and supporting documentation, the Homeland Security SAB overturns TSA’s revocation of the client’s clearance.

The agency then subsequently DISMISSED the underlying misconduct investigation. The client returned to duty.

Since the enactment of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (the Act), 38 USC § 714, questions have remained about its application. The enactment of this statute essentially made it much easier for the Department of Veterans Affairs to remove employees for alleged misconduct without following long-standing Supreme Court precedent of Douglas v. Veterans Affairs, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-306 (1981).

Federal employees were entitled to a much stricter due process entitlement regarding their rights during an agency’s disciplinary proceeding against them. The long-standing precedent of Douglas enumerated the 12 Douglas factors that agencies are bound by to consider during a disciplinary proceeding.

The 2017, 714 statute stripped away many of an employee’s due process rights and granted the agency an easier path to remove an employee without the checks and balances federal employees enjoyed when defending a discipline and penalty action.

Since the inception of the 714 statute, the agency had maintained a position that the Douglas factors no longer applied during the discipline and penalty stage when it removed an employee.

The Conner case was appealed to the Federal Circuit Court, which affirmed that the Douglas factors do apply to the VA during the discipline process. This is the first time the court had corrected the agency’s erroneous belief that the Douglas factors did not apply. This will significantly change the agency discipline process moving forward.

The client, a Special Agent with the US Department of Justice, received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of misconduct, including false statements and lack of candor. The client was removed from the agency.

Pursuant to a full MSPB appeal hearing, the court issued a decision overturning the removal and not sustaining the allegations of false statement and lack of candor, in addition to other allegations of misconduct.

The client was immediately reinstated to his position. The agency appealed to the MSPB decision overturning the removal. The full board of the MSPB SUSTAINED THE INITIAL DECISION. The appellant received all relief he was entitled to, including full attorney fees, costs, and other relief pursuant to the Back Pay Act.

A contracting officer with the U.S. Forest Service was removed from his position for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to a full trial hearing with the MSPB (San Francisco regional office), the initial decision REVERSED the removal pursuant to the agency committing a prohibited personnel practice of EEO retaliation. The client returned to duty. As a result of the agency’s prohibited personnel practice, the client was entitled to compensatory damages.

A federal law enforcement Special Agent (DEA) received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Matter proceeded to an MSPB hearing. The initial decision affirmed the agency’s removal. An appeal to the full MSPB Board resulted in the removal being CANCELLED for violating the Agent’s due process. The client was returned to duty, received full back pay, and attorney’s fees. The agency initiated a subsequent proposal to remove the agent for the same alleged misconduct. After nearly 3 years and pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a Special Agent with the US Department of Justice, had his top-secret clearance revoked by the agency. Through representation, the client appealed to the Department of Justice Access Review Committee (ARC).

The ARC hearing was held at the Main Justice in Washington, DC. The ARC issued a decision and DID NOT SUSTAIN the agency’s REVOCATION.

The client, a police officer with the Department of Veterans Affairs, received a proposed removal for allegations of misconduct. Pursuant to representation and the administrative process, the agency MITIGATED the proposed penalty of removal to a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

A federal law enforcement supervisory Special Agent (DEA), Department of Justice, received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

A federal law enforcement employee (Federal Air Marshal) with the US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY receives proposal to be suspended from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the agency fully RESCINDED the proposed suspension, and the client returned to full duty without any discipline.

A federal employee with the US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

A federal law enforcement Special Agent (DEA) received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. The allegations stemmed from the Agent’s initial academy training. The proposal contained allegations of false statements. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security (HSI), was proposed to be removed from federal service for failing to maintain a condition of employment.

A written response was prepared, and an oral reply was conducted with the agency’s deciding official. The agency agreed NOT TO REMOVE the client from federal service. The client “cured” the failure and returned to full duty.

The client, a Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security, received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of misconduct. The initial proposed removal was RESCINDED by the agency. The agency issued another proposed removal for allegations of misconduct to the client.

Pursuant to representation at the administrative stage, including a written response and oral reply, the agency RESCINDED the proposed removal. The client returned to duty with full benefits.

A federal supervisory Special Agent with the US Department of Justice (DEA) receives a proposed removal from federal service regarding allegations of serious misconduct.

After submission of a written response and conducting an oral reply with the deciding official, the proposed removal was MITIGATED to a non-adverse action suspension of less than 15 days. Client returns the full duty.

A federal law enforcement Special Agent received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

The client received notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct. The client was a police officer with the Department of Veterans Affairs. A written response was prepared on the client’s behalf, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

The deciding official MITIGATED the proposed removal to a 21-day suspension. An appeal to the MSPB was prepared and filed on the client’s behalf. During litigation in the discovery phase of the appeal, the agency completely RESCINDED the 21-day suspension. The client returned to full duty and received all the back pay he was entitled to.

The client, an employee with the Department of Veterans Affairs, received notice of a proposed removal for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply with the agency’s deciding official, the agency removed the appellant from federal service.

An appeal was filed with the MSPB challenging the removal. During the litigation process, the agency RESCINDED the removal action, reinstated the client to their previous position. The client returned to duty with back pay, Attorney’s fees, and all other relief upon reinstatement to the agency. The client returned to full duty without any discipline on record.

The client, an employee with the Department of Justice, DEA, received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of misconduct and false statements.

An investigation commenced to develop the facts. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency RESCINDED the proposed removal in its entirety. The client was issued a letter of clearance. The client returned to full duty.

A federal protective service law enforcement officer received a proposal to be suspended without pay for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply to the agency, DISMISSED the proposed discipline in its entirety.

A federal employee with the Department of Justice received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct, including falsification of government documents. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, an employee with the Department of Justice, DEA, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct. A written response was prepared on the client’s behalf, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

After conducting the oral reply, the deciding official RESCINDED the proposed discipline action in its entirety. The client was issued a letter of clearance. The client returned to full duty without any discipline on record.

An executive assistant with the Department of Veterans Affairs received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply, the removal was RESCINDED by the agency, and the client received a written reprimand. The client returned to duty.

The client, a supervisory employee of the Department of Justice (DEA), received a notice of proposed indefinite suspension regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. The client also received a notice of suspension of his access to NSI (federal top-secret security clearance).

The agency indefinitely suspended the client without pay pending an OIG criminal investigation. The client was represented against the criminal allegations with OIG. Pursuant to several meetings with OIG, OIG declines criminal prosecution.

The agency proposed discipline regarding allegations of misconduct. The discipline was MITIGATED to a non-adverse action of suspension for less than 15 days by the agency’s deciding official. Pursuant to representation, the client’s top-secret clearance was restored, and the client returned to full duty.

The client, a Special Agent with the Department of Justice, DEA, was investigated for alleged serious misconduct. The agency made the preliminary decision to suspend the client’s access to NSI (otherwise known as top-secret clearance) and suspended him without pay.

An appeal was filed with the MSPB challenging the indefinite suspension. During the litigation of that appeal, the agency RESCINDED its decision to suspend the client’s clearance and dismissed the case. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a civilian employee with the Department of the Army, was removed from federal service for alleged misconduct.

An appeal was filed with the MSPB. Pursuant to litigating the matter at the MSPB, the agency RESCINDED the removal and reinstated the client to the client’s former position. The client returned to full duty, receiving all back pay and benefits. The client remains on full duty.

An employee from the Department of Homeland Security (US CIS) was under federal criminal investigation for alleged federal crimes. The client was being investigated by OIG and the United States Attorney’s office. Over a several-year period and interviews with the United States Attorney’s office, the client was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.

The client was proposed for removal for the underlying criminal allegations. The agency DID NOT REMOVE the client. The client retired with his full retirement.

The client received a notice of proposed demotion from the position of supervisory TSA employee, Department of Homeland Security, regarding allegations of serious misconduct. After submission of a written response and conducting an oral reply, the proposed demotion action was MITIGATED to a non-adverse action suspension of less than 15 days. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a federal Special Agent with the Department of Justice (DEA), received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of serious misconduct and false statements. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency DID NOT REMOVE the client from federal service. The client retired with full benefits from the agency.

The client received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of serious misconduct, including false statements. The client was a federal Special Agent with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A written response was prepared on behalf of the client to the agency, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

The agency sustained the proposed removal, and the client was removed from federal service. An appeal was filed with the MSPB on the client’s behalf.

Upon resuming representation after the government shutdown and during the litigation portion of the discovery phase of the appeal, the agency completely RESCINDED the removal action. The client received all back pay and benefits. The client was restored to full duty in his law enforcement position.

The client, a law enforcement management official with the Department of Veterans Affairs, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct. A written response was prepared on behalf of the client. An oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

The agency sustained the misconduct and the penalty of removal under the new statute section 714. An appeal was filed with the MSPB challenging the removal action. The parties engage in written discovery and conducted multiple depositions. The case was SETTLED FAVORABLY for the client.

The client, a GS-14 law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, received a proposed removal notice for alleged misconduct. A written response was prepared on the client’s behalf, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

The agency sustained the proposed removal, and the client was removed from federal service. An appeal was filed with the MSPB on the client’s behalf.

At the conclusion of the discovery phase during litigation of the appeal, the agency completely RESCINDED the removal action, ten days prior to the scheduled MSPB hearing. The client received all back pay (nearly one year’s salary and one year’s leave) status quo ante and all benefits. The client was restored to full duty.

The client, an employee with the Department of Homeland Security, faced an allegation of criminal conduct. The client was subjected to a misconduct investigation by the agency. Pursuant to representation, the client was NOT CHARGED with criminal conduct and received no discipline.

The client, a supervisor with the US Department of Labor, received a proposed notice of removal for allegations of misconduct.

Pursuant to representation, including a written response and oral reply with the agency deciding official, the agency fully RESCINDED the proposed removal notice. The employee was provided with the opportunity to voluntarily transfer to another office within the US Department of Labor, that he chose.

The client, a Special Agent with the US Department of Justice, received a notice of a security clearance revocation. The client was placed in an unpaid status. Pursuant to representation, the agency RESCINDED the notice of security clearance revocation. The client returned to full duty.

A federal employee received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

The client, a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Forest Service, received a proposed removal from federal service regarding allegations of serious misconduct. After submission of a written response and conducting an oral reply, the proposed removal was MITIGATED to a non-adverse action suspension of less than 15 days. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a law enforcement officer with the US Forest Service, USDA, was under criminal investigation for a shooting incident. The client was represented by federal authorities during the investigation.

Ultimately, the client was CLEARED of any criminal wrongdoing. The client faced minor administrative scrutiny. The client was not suspended and returned to full duty as a law enforcement officer.

The client, a law enforcement officer with the Department of Veterans Affairs, received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of serious misconduct. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency sustained the removal, and the client was removed from federal service.

An appeal to the MSPB was filed on the client’s behalf, challenging the removal. Pursuant to the litigation portion of the appeal, the agency RESCINDED the removal, a settlement was negotiated, and the client transferred to another federal agency.

A high-level supervisor with the Department of Transportation was removed for alleged misconduct. An appeal was made to the MSPB (Chicago regional office) challenging the disciplinary action. During the litigation process, the matter was resolved by SETTLEMENT. The disciplinary action was RESCINDED in its entirety, with the client returning to duty with full pay.

A federal law enforcement Special Agent received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

A federal law enforcement Special Agent received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

A federal law enforcement Special Agent (DEA) received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. This proposal contained allegations of false statements. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct.

The written response was prepared on behalf of the client. The oral reply was conducted with the deciding official. After the oral reply, the agency MITIGATED the penalty to a period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

A supervisor with the National Weather Service is suspended from his duties regarding allegations of significant misconduct and faces potential removal. Pursuant to the administrative process, the agency concludes no misconduct occurred, the client is CLEARED of wrongdoing and returns to work.

The client, a supervisor with the Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, received a proposed removal from Federal service for alleged misconduct. The agency “MITIGATED” the proposed penalty from removal to a two grade level demotion.

An appeal was filed with the MSPB challenging the action. Pursuant to the discovery process, the agency sought a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, the agency RESCINDED the action and reassigned the client to a position of his choice at his original grade level.

The client, a police officer with the Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, received a proposal to demote him one grade level for allegations of misconduct. Pursuant to representation during the administrative process, including a written response and oral reply, the client received a SMALL SUSPENSION and retained his grade level and returned to full duty.

The client, a supervisory employee of the Department of the Treasury, received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of serious misconduct and false statements. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency engaged in a RESOLUTION DISCUSSION.

The client ultimately received a small suspension. The client returned to duty as a supervisory employee.

A Federal Air Marshal (FAM) with the Department of Homeland Security was proposed to be removed for alleged misconduct. Following the submission of a written response and conducting the oral reply with the deciding official, the agency affirmed the proposed removal and terminated the FAM. The removal was appealed to the MSPB (Chicago regional office), challenging the removal. During the litigation process, the agency completely RESCINDED the removal and substituted a letter of reprimand. The client received back pay and was returned to full duty.

The client, a senior grade 15 manager, was removed for alleged misconduct from the agency.

An appeal was filed with the MSPB challenging the client’s removal from Federal service. During the MSPB hearing scheduled for five full days of testimony, the parties SETTLED THE CASE that returned the client to full duty with all back pay, benefits, attorney’s fees, and all other relief.

The client, Chief of Police with the Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to a written response prepared on the client’s behalf, in addition to conducting an oral reply with the deciding official, the agency RESCINDED the proposed penalty of removal. The client received a small suspension. The client returned to full duty.

A Federal Air Marshal (FAM) with the Department of Homeland Security was proposed to be removed for alleged misconduct. The client, through previous counsel, submitted a written response and conducted the oral reply with the deciding official. The agency affirmed the proposed removal and terminated the FAM. The client then retained this firm to appeal the removal to the MSPB (Chicago regional office), challenging the removal. A full trial hearing was conducted with the MSPB. The MSPB REVERSED the agency’s removal action and ruled that no misconduct occurred. The client returned to duty.

A Hawaii Federal LE special agent was removed from his position for alleged misconduct. A full trial hearing was conducted at the MSPB (San Francisco regional office). Initial decision MITIGATED removal to a period of suspension. MSPB AFFIRMED the initial dictations. The client returned to full duty.

A registered nurse with the Department of Veterans Affairs received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the administrative process, the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED by the agency, and the client received a five-day suspension. The client returned to duty.

The client received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of serious misconduct. The client was a federal air marshal with the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to this office assuming representation, the client was removed from federal service.

This firm assumed representation after the client’s removal. An appeal with the MSPB is filed on behalf of the client, challenging the removal from federal service. The parties engage in significant discovery and depositions.

Upon resuming representation after the government shutdown, the parties litigated the matter at the MSPB. The parties proceeded to a full MSPB hearing at the MSPB office in Manhattan, New York.

The MSPB overturned the removal and MITIGATED the penalty to a 7-day suspension. The client was immediately placed back in a full pay status and returned to work.

The client, a federal law enforcement officer with the USDA, became the subject of an administrative and criminal investigation for alleged misconduct during the performance of law enforcement duties.

Pursuant to representation during the investigative process, the client was CLEARED of any wrongdoing and misconduct. The client returned to full duty.

A federal employee received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

The client, a supervisory transportation security officer with the Department of Homeland Security, received a notice of proposed demotion regarding allegations of misconduct.

Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the proposed demotion was MITIGATED to a non-adverse action suspension of less than 15 days. The client returned to full duty as a supervisory employee.

The client, a Federal Air Marshal with the Department of Homeland Security, received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of serious misconduct and false statements. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency MITIGATED the proposed removal to a 3-day suspension.

The client returned to full duty as a federal air marshal.

The client, a Special Agent with the US Department of Justice, was named as a person of interest for a multi-defendant indictment prosecuted by the Manhattan US Attorney’s office.

The client was represented during several meetings and discussions with federal prosecutors. The client was NOT CHARGED and did not participate in the case. The client continues full duty with the agency.

The client, a police officer with the Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of misconduct. Through representation, the client conducted the administrative process with counsel. At the conclusion of the administrative process, the agency RESCINDED the action. The client returned to full duty with no penalty or discipline.

The client, a supervisory employee with the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, received a notice of proposed removal regarding alleged misconduct. A written response was prepared on the client’s behalf. An oral reply was conducted with the deciding official. The agency sustained the misconduct allegations and the penalty of removal.

An appeal was filed with the MSPB challenging the removal. During the discovery process, the agency RESCINDED the action. The client returned to full duty as a supervisory employee.

A federal law enforcement employee received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

A law enforcementofficer with the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed for alleged misconduct. An appeal was made to the MSPB (San Francisco regional office) challenging the removal. During the litigation process, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the matter resulted in a substantial financial SETTLEMENT.

The client received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of serious misconduct. The client, a supervisory civilian employee of the Department of the Army, was accused of misconduct, including harassment of employees. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency mitigates the proposed removal to a demotion, rank, and pay.

An appeal to the MSPB is filed on the client’s behalf, challenging the demotion. During the litigation portion of the appeal, the appellant was able to NEGOTIATE A FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT and transferred to another federal agency.

The client received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of serious misconduct. The client was a federal Special Agent with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A written response was prepared on behalf of a client to the agency, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

The agency sustained the proposed removal, and the client was removed from federal service approximately one week before Christmas.

Upon resuming representation after the government shutdown, an appeal was filed with the MSPB on the client’s behalf. During the litigation portion of the discovery phase of the appeal, the agency completely RESCINDED the removal action. The client received all back pay and benefits. The client was restored to full duty in his law enforcement position.

The client, an employee with the SSA, was being investigated for serious misconduct in the office. Pursuant to the representation, the investigators CLEARED the appellant of any wrongdoing. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a civilian law enforcement employee, Department of Defense, was charged criminally in the US District Court regarding a firearms-related event. Pursuant to the representation, ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED. The client returned to duty.

A federal law enforcement employee with the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ICE, received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct and revocation of security clearance. Pursuant to several written responses, oral replies, and an appeal to the MSPB, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the client returned to the agency.

A federal law enforcement officer was removed from his position as a probationary employee. Matter appealed to the MSPB (Denver regional office) for a non-frivolous allegation of jurisdiction, asserting the officer was not a probationary employee but had chapter 75 rights as a federal employee. The initial decision upheld the agency dismissal as a probationary removal. The matter was appealed to the full MSPB. The decision OVERTURNED the initial decision and REMANDED back for further adjudication.

The client, a federal Special Agent with the US Department of Justice (DEA), was accused of a serious breach in top-secret security. The client was proposed to be indefinitely suspended without pay. The client also had access to NSI (top-secret clearance) suspended. After assuming representation, the indefinite suspension was RESCINDED, in the suspension of the client’s top-secret clearance was restored.

The client resumed full duties as a Special Agent without restriction.

A federal Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security (HSI) receives a proposed removal from federal service regarding allegations of serious misconduct. After submission of a written response and conducting an oral reply with the deciding official, the agency MITIGATED the removal proposal to a one-day suspension. Client returns the full duty.

The client, an investigator with the Department of Justice, ATF, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct.

An investigation was conducted to determine the nature of the allegations against the client. A written response was prepared on behalf of the client. An oral reply was conducted with the agency’s deciding official.

The agency MITIGATED the proposed penalty of removal to a non-adverse minor suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a supervisory GS–14 Special Agent with the Department of Justice, ATF, received a notice of Demotion, reassignment, and a 45-day suspension from his position for alleged misconduct.

Pursuant to the preparation of a written response and conducting the oral reply with the deciding official, the deciding official MITIGATED the penalty to a minor suspension with no Demotion or reassignment. The client returned to full supervisory duties in place.

A federal supervisory employee received a proposal to be demoted from a supervisory position for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal was RESCINDED, and the client received a period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

A Southern California Federal LE special agent was removed from his position for alleged misconduct. A full trial hearing was conducted at the MSPB (San Francisco regional office). Initial decision MITIGATED removal to a period of suspension. MSPB AFFIRMED the initial decision. The client returned to duty.

The client, a supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security, US Border Patrol, received a notice of Demotion from the supervisory position for alleged misconduct. The demotion would contemplate a significant drop in pay and have a chilling effect on future promotional opportunities.

The written response was prepared on behalf of the client. The oral reply was conducted with the deciding official. The agency did not sustain the action, and the client received a LETTER OF CLEARANCE. The client returned to full supervisory duties with the agency.

A federal law enforcement Special Agent (DEA), Department of Justice, received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the client received a very small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a Special Agent with the Department of Justice, received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of serious misconduct and false statements. Pursuant to a written response and oral reply, the agency MITIGATED the penalty to a period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

A federal law enforcement supervisory Special Agent received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply, the deciding official of the agency, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to duty.

A Department of Justice federal law enforcement supervisor stationed in Latin America was removed for alleged misconduct. An appeal was made to the MSPB (San Francisco regional office) challenging the removal. During the litigation process, the client was returned to full duty pursuant to SETTLEMENT. The removal was RESCINDED. The client was reinstated.

The client, a police officer with the Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, received a notice of proposed removal. At the conclusion of the administrative process with the agency, the agency issued a MITIGATION to a two-grade-level demotion.

Through representation, the client filed an MSPB appeal challenging the demotion. Through the discovery process prior to the MSPB hearing, the agency agreed to REINSTATE the client at the original grade level. The client returned to full duty with the original grade level of pay.

The client, a GS-14 law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, was previously removed for alleged misconduct. Ultimately, the agency RESCINDED the action and returned the client back to full duty with all back pay and relief the client was entitled to. The agency indicated that they would repropose the action again to correct the significant due process deficiencies occurring in the original removal action.

After significant discussion and application of the facts and evidence, the agency issued a letter of reprimand in lieu of the original removal action, and the case was closed out without any further action. The client remains in full duty status.

The client, an employee with the Department of Homeland Security, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct, including false statements. A written response was prepared on the client’s behalf, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

After conducting the oral reply, the deciding official MITIGATED the proposed removal penalty to a small period of suspension. The client returned the full duty.

The client, a law enforcement employee for the US Department of Justice, received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of misconduct. The agency then removed the client from federal service.

Through representation, the client filed an appeal with the MSPB challenging the removal. Pursuant to a full MSPB hearing, the court issued a decision REVERSING THE REMOVAL. The client returned to full duty with all benefits pursuant to the Back Pay Act, including back pay, restored leave, and all other available relief. The agency declined to file an appeal. Full attorney’s fees were awarded.

A pharmacy supervisor with the Department of Veterans Affairs received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official in the administrative process, the removal proposal was RESCINDED in its entirety. The client received a cash payment in settlement. The client returned to duty.

A federal LE special agent was removed from his position for alleged misconduct. A full trial hearing was conducted at the MSPB (Dallas regional office). Initial decision REVERSED for violation of the client’s due process rights. The client returned to duty.

The client, a federal employee, received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of serious misconduct. After a submission of a written response and conducting an oral reply, the agency sustained the proposed removal, and the client was removed from federal service.

An appeal to the MSPB was filed on the client’s behalf. During the discovery phase of the appeal, the agency completely RESCINDED the removal and returned the client to full duty without any discipline.

A federal employee received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the removal is RESCINDED, and the client receives no discipline. Client returns to duty.

A federal employee with the Department of Justice received a proposal to be removed from federal service for alleged misconduct, including falsification of government documents. Pursuant to the written response and oral reply with the deciding official, the agency RESCINDED the removal, and the client received a small period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a SES level federal employee, was removed from federal service pursuant to allegations of serious misconduct. During the litigation process at the MSPB, the agency RESCINDED the removal. The client eventually retired from federal service with a full pension.

In 2018, the client received a notice of proposed removal regarding allegations of serious misconduct. The client, a high-level manager with the Department of Labor. The written responses appeared on behalf of the client, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

Ultimately, the agency agreed NOT TO REMOVE the client. The client was restored to full duty and returned to work.

The client, employed with the Department of Agriculture, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct. A written response was prepared on behalf of the client. An oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

Negotiations occurred with the agency. The removal penalty was RESCINDED, and the client took another position within the agency. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a GS-15 manager with the Department of Defense, was advised that he was under criminal and administrative investigation for alleged misconduct regarding subordinate employees.

Pursuant to representation, Office of Inspector General investigators conduct an investigation. After discussion and review of documentation, the appellant was CLEARED of any wrongdoing. The client subsequently obtained a position with a senior executive service (SES). The client remains on full duty.

The client, a GS 15 manager with the Department of Defense, received a notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct. A written response was prepared on the client’s behalf, and an oral reply was conducted with the deciding official.

After conducting the oral reply, the deciding official MITIGATED the RESCINDED proposed discipline action to a period of suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a Law enforcement agent with the Department of Defense, became the subject of a criminal investigation for alleged criminal misconduct. The client was placed on restricted duty. Pursuant to representation, the client was CLEARED of any wrongdoing and returned to full duty.

The client received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of misconduct in addition to a preliminary decision to revoke the client’s security clearance.

The client was 18 months away from retirement. Through representation, it was SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED with the agency to allow the client to have a full retirement and not take final action. The client retired with full retirement benefits.

The client, a grade 15 employee with the federal government, received a notice of proposed removal. Pursuant to representation, the agency RESCINDED the proposed removal with no discipline. The client returned to full duty.

The client, an employee with the Department of Justice, DEA, received a notice of a proposed discipline action that would remain on the employee’s official personnel file for the duration of employment.

After conducting a written response and contact with the agency, the agency’s deciding official RESCINDED the proposed discipline plan of action in its entirety. The client returned the full duty without any discipline on record.

The client, a federal law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, received a proposed reduction in grade and suspension for alleged misconduct.

Pursuant to representation during the administrative process, the agency RESCINDED the initial proposed discipline, and the client received a small suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, an employee with the Department of Interior, received a proposal to revoke top-secret clearance. The client received a proposal for removal concerning a security clearance issue. The client was removed.

An appeal was filed with the MSPB challenging the removal and agency action. During the discovery process, the agency RESCINDED the removal action, reinstated the client to their previous position. The client returned to duty with back pay and all other relief upon reinstatement to the position with no discipline on record.

The client, an employee of the US Forest Service, received a notice of proposed removal for allegations of misconduct. Pursuant to representation, providing a written response and conducting an oral reply, and negotiations with the agency, the penalty was MITIGATED to a suspension. The client returned to full duty.

The client, a law enforcement employee of the US Department of Agriculture, received a notice of proposed removal for significant off-duty misconduct.

Pursuant to representation and negotiation with the agency, the client received an ALTERNATIVE PENALTY and returned to duty with full reinstatement.

The client, an employee with the United States Department of the Interior, received a proposal for a suspension without pay was accused of lack of candor. Pursuant to representation, the agency RESCINDED the lack of candor charge, and the client received no suspension and returned to full duty.