United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

II. TERMINATION DOES NOT SERVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
SERVICE.
A. The Douglas penalty factors have not been adequately addressed.
The Board’s decision is materially incomplete for compliance with burdens
established by Douglas, 5 M.S.P.R. at 305-06, for penalty. Neither the AJ nor the
Board addressed whether Donzanti’s compliance with Douglas was sufficiently
probing, compared to a perfunctory checklist review based on the charges. Parsons
v. Dep’t of Air Force, 707 F.2d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Woebcke v. Dep’t of
Homeland Security, 110 M.S.P.R. 100 (2010)
As discussed earlier, at hearing Donzanti conceded that he did not inquire
about or disregarded 21 material Douglas factors, including lack of remorse or
good faith mistake. None are background. They must be considered to determine if
MacLean engaged in irresponsible judgment, or has proved himself worthy of a
second chance.
Neither the AJ nor Board made any credibility determinations for Donzanti,
although he was the deciding official whose formal determination was controlling.
That is harmful error, since he not only fired MacLean but was the agency’s only
witness. See, e.g., Grant, 61 M.S.P.R. at 374-75 Bias by agency officials
determining penalty long has been material to assess compliance with Douglas.
Coons v. Dep’t of Navy, 15 M.S.P.R. 1, 5 (1983)
41