Intimidating and Controlling Behavior

This document is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, and may require redaction before
disclosure to third parties. No redaction has been performed by the Office of Inspector emeras. Recipients
of this report should not disseminate or copy it without the Inspector General's approval.
2. The Adequacy and Effectiveness of Alternative Sanctions
In determining an appropriate penalty, it is well-established that the Agency must
consider all relevant Douglas factors. See Barry v. Dept. of the Treasury, 71 M.S.P.R. 283,285
(1 996). One of those Douglas factors is the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions
to deter such conduct by the employee in the future.'
In Gilmore-Chandler v. Dept. of the Army, 2005 MSPB LEXS 343 (January 21,2005),
the MSPB upheld the removal of a GS-15 Management Services Officer for abuse of supervisory
authorityy screaming and yelling at a subordinate in front of other employees, and lack of candor
in an agency investigation, among other charges. In determining the appropriate penalty, the
Board found that mitigating the proposed penalty of removal to a demotion and reassignment to a
non-supervisory position would not be sufficient for the efficiency of the service because
appellant offered no suggestion that her actions were wrong and she would-most likely persist in
similar misconduct in the future. Gilmore-Chandler, 2005 MSPB 343 at *65. See also Kenner v.
USPB, 2007 MSPB LEXZS 4413 (March 26,2007) (finding lesser penalty, such as a suspension,
than reducing his grade and pay would not have had a sufficient deterrent effect because
appellant did not seem to appreciate the seriousness of his misconduct); Brown v. Social Security
Administration, 2005 MSPB LEXIS 8040 (December 28,2005) (aEtirming removal of employee
for inappropriate and disruptive conduct whae employee had been counseled and disciplined for
similar misconduct which "did not bode well for his prospects for rehabilitation.").
Results of Supi~lemental Investigation
In an effort to investigate the informant's allegations, the OIG contacted four of the
Individuals the informant believed ad contacted for an affidavit. The OIG conducted
in person interviews of those indi one other former subordinate o , on
May 15,16 and 20,2008,~ Four of the five persons we int by
rson was not ask an affidavit, but she
she found it to be
extremely disruptive to .&e
Several of the individuals we interviewed balked intimidating request to
2 Additional relevant Douglas factors include: (a) the "nature and seriousness of the offense" including its
fiequent repetition; and (b) %e clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in
commitkg the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question"
3 The OIG is withholding the names of these individuals we interviewed for purposes of confidentiality and
because of concern about retaliation.
W(7W