Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 98

Case: 14-3104 Case:

CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 1 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
1 Filed: 08/08/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

EUGENE D. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,

V
NO. 14-3t04

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,


Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S INF'ORMAL BRIEF AND APPENDIX

I. NATURE OF THE CASE.


The petitioner, Eugene D. Johnson, seeks review of a decision of the

Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB" or "Board") dismissing his appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. Tnhncn r Tlen'f r fH e.A I th en H rlnn Serr

MSPB Docket No. DC-3443-I4-0I50-I-1 (Initial Decision, March 7, 2014).

Respondent's Appendix (RA) 1-8.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE COURSE OF


PROCEEDINGS BELOW.
On November 16,2013, Mr. Johnson filed an appeal with the Board

concerning various allegations arising from his federal employment at the

General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) prior to his retirement in July 2009. RA 14-16.


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 2 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
2 Filed: 08/08/2014

Specifically, Mr. Johnson alleged that he was involuntarily transferred from

HHS to GSA in 2001. RA 15. After the transfer, Mr. Johnson alleged that

his health deteriorated at GSA because of stress. Id. He also noted that his

"initial case...filed through the EEOC as a rcciaI discrimination case...was

denied" and that senior management took improper actions against him in

connection with his work identifying cost savings to GSA. Id. Finally, he

indicated that he could now validate his prior military service based on his

military records. Id

On December 2, 2013, the administrative judge issued ar


acknowledgment order informing Mr. Johnson that the Board might not have

jurisdiction over his appeal based on the "numerous problems...[he

identifiedl...with GSA and HHS beginning in 200I...," and that his appeal

appeared untimely since none of the actions occurred within the last 30

days. RA 18-19. The administrative judge also informed Mr. Johnson that

he bore the burden of proof on the jurisdictional and timeliness issues,

ordered him to file evidence and argument accordingly, and indicated the

record would close on December 27,2013. RA 19.

In response, ofl or about January 6, 2014, Mr. Johnson filed

documents that he believed alleged that he was involuntarily transferred

from HHS to GSA and included a copy of a GAO report, dated December
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 3 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
3 Filed: 08/08/2014

1999, concerning the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Administration

Facility. RA 3l-38, 46. On January 7 , 2014, Mr. Johnson submitted further

documents concerning various issues during his federal employment,

including but not limited to his transfer to GSA, harassment, "overcharged

contracts," health issues that "raised life threatening concerns," and design

flaws in a federal building located in College Park, Maryland. RA 49-5I

He also discussed prior Board appeals that were filed in 2000 and 2001. RA

77. Neither pleading was served on the agency. RA 78-79. Consequently,

on January 10, 2014, the administrative judge served the pleadings to


facilitate the processing of the appeal, but noted fhat arry further
submissions without proper service would be rejected. Id.

Despite the record closing on December 27, 2014, Mr. Johnson filed

additional documents on February 24,2014 that he asserted were served on

the agency. RA 80-84. On February 27,2014, the agency filed a motion to

strike the untimely frling. RA 85

Initial Decision - March 7. 2014

On March 7,2014, the administrative judge issued an Initial Decision

dismissing Mr.Johnson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. RA 1. According


to the administrative judge, "[i]t is not clear what the appellant is attempting

to appeal or why he believes the Board has any authority to address his
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 4 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
4 Filed: 08/08/2014

complaints." RA 3. Despite an opportunity to do so, the administrative

judge found that Mr. Johnson failed to articulate any basis for the Board's

jurisdiction as set forth in the acknowledgement order. RA 3. In reaching


the decision to dismiss Mr. Johnson' appeal, the administrative judge did

not consider his February 24,2014 submission because it was untimely and

"...was not responsive to the issues set forth in the acknowledgement

order." Moreover, the administrative judge concluded that she did not need

to address the untimeliness of his appeal because the Board was without

jurisdiction in this matter and "he did not explain the basis for his appeal or

the reasons for his years-long deIay." RA 3

The Initial Decision became the Board's Final decision on April 11,

2014, because Mr. Johnson did not file a petition for review.

An appeal to this Court followed.

1 Has the netitioner ever harl an other case in this Court. a United States
D ln ommission?

Counsel for the Respondent is unaware of any other cases. However,

Mr. Johnson indicates that he previously had an EEOC case (Case No. 100-

2004-00923X).
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 5 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
5 Filed: 08/08/2014

2. Did the MSPB incorrectly decide or fail to take into account anv
facts?
No. Mr. Johnson alleges that the Board failed to consider

"information contained in the GAO report titled FDA Facility Requirements

for Building on a Floodplain Met." Petitioner's Brief (PB), Question No. 2

However, this is incorrect. Mr. Johnson provided a copy of this report in his

January 6, 2014 submission, and all other relevant facts were properly
considered by the administrative judge. RA 31-38. The report was
published in December 1999. RA 31. Therefore, the report and any

information contained therein were readily available to Mr. Johnson during

his appeal and the administrative judge considered it when she dismissed his

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

J Did the MSPB apply the wrong law?


No. It is well-established that the Board does not have jurisdiction
over all actions that are alleged to be incorrect. Marren v. Dep't. of Justice,

49 M.S.P.R. 45, 51 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Rather, the Board's jurisdiction is

limited to those matters over which jurisdiction specifically has been

granted by law, rule, or regulation. Prewitt v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 F.3d

885,886 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The burden rests on the employee to establish

that the Board has jurisdiction. 5 C.F.R. S 1201.56(a)(2)(; Stern v. Dep't.


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 6 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
6 Filed: 08/08/2014

of the Army,699 F.2d 1312, I314 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,462 U.S. 1122

(1e8s)

Here, the administrative judge's acknowledgment order provided Mr.

Johnson an opportunity to establish the Board's jurisdiction through the


submission of evidence and argument. RA 18-19. Mr. Johnson simply
failed to take advantage of this opportunity. To establish the Board's
jurisdiction, Mr. Johnson submitted evidence on two dates (i.e., January 6,

2014 and January 7, 2014) that failed to explain or establish a nonfrivolous

issue of fact relating to jurisdiction. Wilson v, Merit Sys. Prot. 8d.,807 F.

2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, the evidence is not remotely

relevant or related to any actions that could establish the Board's


jurisdiction. For example, Mr, Johnson's evidence addresses his allegations

that he was involuntarily transferred from HHS to GSA in 200I. An

employee that transfers between federal agencies is not an appealabie action

to the Board. 5 C.t.R. S 1201 .3.

In sum, the administrative judge correctly concluded that "[i]t is not


clear what the appellant is attempting to appeal or why he believes he Board

has any authority to address his complaints." RA 3. He simply "did not

explain the basis for his appeal..." despite being provided an opportunity to

do so in the acknowledgement order. Id. On appeal, Mr. Johnson provides


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 7 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
7 Filed: 08/08/2014
7

no basis to disturb the administrative judge's decision to dismiss his appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the administrative judge's decision

should be affirmed

4. Did the MSPB fail to consider im n ortant srounds for relief?


No. The administrative judge considered applicable statutes,
regulations, and case law, and found that Mr. Johnson did not make a

nonfrivolous allegation of fact relating to jurisdiction. Mr. Johnson

contends that the administrative judge failed to consider evidence of


harassment for whistleblowing. PB, Question 3 and 4. This contention is

meritless because it is vague and conclusory. The administrative judge

properly concluded that Mr. Johnson failed to make clear what he was

attempting to appeal or why he believed that the Board had any authority to

address his complaints. RA 3. The administrative judge therefore properly

dismissed his appeal without holding a jurisdictional hearing. See Garca v.

Dep't. of Homeland 9ec.,437 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2006). (Petitioner

entitled to a hearing only if he makes a nonfrivolous allegation that, if

proven, can establish the Board's jurisdiction).

5 Are there other reasons whv the MSPB's deciston was wrons?
No. The administrative judge's decision complies with applicable

statutes, regulations, and case law. Mr. Johnson contends his February 24,
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 8 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
8 Filed: 08/08/2014

r
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 9 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
9 Filed: 08/08/2014

BRYAN G, POLISUK
General Counsel

Office of thc Goneral Counsel


Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street. NW
Slashinston, DC 20419-0002
(202) 2s4-4st8
DArE: Tl o,'f
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 10 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
10 Filed: 08/08/2014

APPENDIX TO RESPONDENT'S BRIEF


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 11 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
11 Filed: 08/08/2014

INDEX TO

InitialDecision(March7,20l4). .............1

Certified Index.

Appellant's Initial Appeal (exceqpt) (November 16, 2013). ..................12

Acknowledgement Order (excerpt) (December 2,2013) ................I7

Petitioner' s Response (January 6, 2014)

Petitioner's Response (exceqpt) (January 7,2014). ........46

Failure to Serve Order (January 10,2014) . 78

Failure to Serve Order (January 10,2014)

Petitioner's Response and Exhibits (excerpt) (February 25,201,4) ... 80

Agency's Motion to Strike (excerpt) (February 27 , 2014) .... ..85


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 12 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
12 Filed: 08/08/2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
\ilASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE

EUGENE D. JOHNSON, DOCKET NUMBER


Appellant, DC-3443-14-0150-I- 1

v
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: March 7,2014
HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.

Eugene D. Johnson, Spotsylvania, Virginia, pro se.

James E. Simpson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE
Sarah P. Clement
Administrative Judge

INITIAL DECISION

The appellant filed art appeal of a variety of problems that occurred in


200I. He stated that he had retired from Federal service in Juiy 2009. For the
following reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of Board jurisdiction.

BACKGROUNI)
The appellant' s allegations in his petition for appeal involve at least two
different agencies and occurred more than 13 years ago. It was not clear what he
was alleging or what he was trying to appeal. See Appeal File (AF), Tab 1
(appeal form at blocks 4, 7). In a supplemental ftling, he attached documents
showing that he had prior military service during the Korean War, prior Federal
service, and por contacts with the Board and the Office of Special Counsel in

RAT
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 13 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
13 Filed: 08/08/2014
2

2002 ar1d 2004. AF, Tab 2. Still, nothing in his submission identified what
action he was appealing or any basis for the Board's jurisdiction over this matter.
I issued an acknowledgment order on December 2,2013, informing the appellant
that it did not appear that the Board had jurisdiction over his appeal or that it had
been timely filed. AF, Tab 3. I invited the appellant to submit additional
evidence and argument showing some basis for the Board's jurisdiction over this
matter and that good cause existed for his untimely fiIing. Id.
The appellant responded by filing numerous pleadings that he refused to
serve on the agerLcy, despite my issuance of four Failure To Serve orders. AF,
Tabs i-II. One of these unserved submissions is in the record atTab 7 and does
not respond to the issues raised in my acknowledgment order. Instead it
discusses matters that occurred when in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as prior
Board appeals he brought in 2000 and 2001. He alluded in another unserved
filing to an "involuntary transfe " from the Food and Drug Administration to the
General Services Administration in 1989 or 1990. AF, Tab 6. I had this filing
served on the agecy with a warning to the appellant Lhal any further filings that
were not accompanied by a certificate of service showing that he had served them
on the agecy would be rejected. Nevertheless the appellant continued to submit
pleadings without serving them on the agency. These pleadings were rejected and
returned to him. Eventually, he submitted some documents that he asserted had

been served on the agency, but this filing was not received until February 24,
2014, and the record on the jurisdictional and timeliness issues had closed on
December 27,2013. AF, Tabs 3, 1.2. The agency filed a motion to strike the

pleading as untimely filed without permission or explan'ation. AF, Tab 13.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

that the Board does not have jurisdiction over all


It is well-established
-v.
actions that are alleged to be incorrect, Marren Deprtment of Justice, 49

RAz
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 14 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
14 Filed: 08/08/2014
4
J

M.S.P.R. 45 , 5L (1991), and that the appellant has the burden of proving that the
Board has jurisdiction over his appeaI,5 C.F.R. $ 1201.56(a)(2). Allegations of
discrimination, standing alone, are not appealable to the Board. See Wren v.
Departrnent of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2 (1980). It is not clear what the
appellant is attempting to appeal or why he believes the Board has any authority
to address his complaints. The appellant is complaining of events that occurred
decades ago. He noted in his petition for appealthat he retired in July 2009, so
there cannot have been arLy appealable action taken against him at least since that
time. The appellant did not explain the basis for his appeal or the reasons for his
years-long delay in bringing this appeal. He refused to follow my instructions
and the Board's regulations regarding service of pleadings on the other party. He
did not request an extension of any filing deadline or provide any reason why he
could not follow the instructions set forth in my acknowledgment order and
numerous failure to serve orders. I have thus not considered his filing received in
February 24, 2014, since it came two months after the record in this matter had
closed, and in any event was not responsive to the issues set forth in the
acknowledgment order.
The appellant has not articulated any basis for the Board's jurisdiction over
this matter. Since he stated thathe retired from Federal service in July 2009, it is
unclear what kind of claim he could be bringing at this late date. As I informed
the appellant in my acknowledgment order, unless one or more of the actions
listed in the Board's regulations at 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.3(a) has been taken against
him, he cannot raise the matters he complains of in this forum. Because of the
lack of any basis for the Board's jurisdiction in this matter, I need not address the
additional problem of the untimeliness of this appeal.
Because the appellant failed to raise nonfrivolous issues of fact telating to
jurisdiction, he is not entitled to a hearing in his case. See Wilson v. Merit
systems Protecton Board,807 F.2d L577, 1583 (Fed. cir. 1986).

RA3
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 15 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
15 Filed: 08/08/2014
4

DECISION
The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

FOR THE BOARD


Sarah
fir-A
P.
{ Cf*^,J-'
Clement
Administrative Judge

NOTICE TO APPELLANT
This initial decision will become final on April 11, 2014, unless a petition
for review is filed by that date. This is an important date because it is usually the
last day on which you can file a petition for review with the Board. However, if
you prove that you received this inifial decision more than 5 days after the date of
issuance, you may file a petition for review within 30 days after the date you
actually receive the initial decision. If you are represented, the 30-day period
begins to run upon either your receipt of the initial decision or its receipt by your
representative, whichever comes first. You must establish the date on which you
or your representative received it. The date on which the initial decision becomes
final also controls when you can file a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals. The paragraphs that follow tell you how and when to file with the
Board or the federal court. These instructions are important because if you wish
to file a petition, you must file it within the proper time period.

BOARD REVIEW
You may request Board review of this initial decision by filing a petition
for review.
If the other party has already filed a timely petition for review, you may
f:Je a cross petitionfor review. Your petition or cross petition for review must
state your objections to the initial decision, supported by references to applicable
laws, regulations, and the record. You must file it with:

RA
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 16 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
16 Filed: 08/08/2014
5

The Clerk of the Board


Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20419

A petition or cross petition for review may be f,led by mail, facsimile (fax),
personal or commercial delivery, or electronic filing. A petition submitted by
electronic filing must comply with the requirements of 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.14, and
may only be accomplished at the Board's e-Appeal website
(http s ://e-appeal.mspb. gov).

Criteria for Grantine a Petition or Cross Petition for Review


Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.115, the Board normally will consider only
issues raised in a timely f,tled petition or coss petition for review. Situations in
which the Board may grat a petition or cross petition for review include, but are
not iimitedto, a'showing that:
(a) The initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact. (1)
Any alleged factual error must be material, meaning of sufficient weight to
warant an outcome different from that of the initial decision. (2) A petitioner
who alleges that the judge made erroneous findings of mateiaT fact must explain
why the challenged factual determination is incorrect and identify specific
evidence in the record that demonstrates the error. In reviewing a claim of an
erroneous finding of fact, the Board will give deference to an administrative
judge's credibility determinations when they are based, explicitly or implicitly,
on the observation of the demeanor of witnesses testifying at ahearing.
(b) The initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or
regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case. The
petitioner must explain how the error affected the outcome of the case.
(c) The judge's rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial
decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of
discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case.

RA5
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 17 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
17 Filed: 08/08/2014
6

(d) New and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
the petitioner's due diligence, was not available when the record closed. To
constitute new evidence, the information contained in the documents, not just the
documents themselves, must have been unavailable despite due diligence when
the record closed.
As stated in 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.114(h), a petition for review, a cross petition
for review, ot a response to a petition for review, whether computer generated,
typed, or handwritten, is limited to 30 pages or 7500 words, whichever is less. A
reply to a response to a petition for review is limited to 15 pages or 3750 words,
whichever is less. Computer generated and typed pleadings must use no less than
72 pointtypeface and 1-inch margins and must be double spaced and only use one
sideof apage. The length limitation is exclusive of any table of contents, table of
authorities, attachments, and certilicate of service. A request for leave to file a
pleading that exceeds the limitations prescribed in this paragraph must be
received by the Clerk of the Board atleast 3 days before the filing deadline. Such
requests must give the reasons for a waiver as well as the desired length of the
pleading and are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The page and word
limits set forth above are maximum limits. Parties are not expected or required to
submit pleadings of the maximum length. Typically, a well-written petition for
review is between 5 and 10 pages long.
If you file a petition or cross petition for review, the Board will obtain the
record in your case from the administrative judge and you should not submit
anything to the Board that is al,:ready part of the record. A petition for review
must be filed with the Clerk of the Board no later than the date this initial
decision becomes ftnal' or if this initial decision is received by you or your
representative more than 5 days after the date of issuance, 30 days after the date
you or your representative actually received the iniLial decision, whichever rryas

f,rrst. If you claim that you and your representative both received this decision
more than 5 days after its issuance, you have the burden to prove to the Board the

RA6
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 18 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
18 Filed: 08/08/2014
1

earlier date of receipt. You must also show that any delay in receiving the initial
decision was not due to the delib erate evasion of receipt. You may meet your
burden by frling evidence and argument, sworn or under penalty of perjury (see 5

C.F.R. Part 1201, Appendix 4) to support your claim. The date of filing by mail
is determined by the postmark date. The date of filing by fax or by electronic
filing is the date of submission. The date of filing by personal delivery is the
date on which the Board receives the document. The date of filing by commercial
delivery is the date the document was delivered to the commercial delivery
service. Your petition may be rejected and returned to you if you fail to provide
a statement of how you served your petition on the other pafiy. ^9ee 5 C.F.R.
$ 1201.4(i). If the peition is filed electronically, the online process itself will
serve the petition on other e-filers. ^9ee
5 C.F.R. $ 1201.14X1).
A cross petition for review must be filed within 25 days after the date of
service of the petition for review.

NOTICE TO AGENCY/INTERVENOR
The agecy or intervenor may file a petition for review of this initial
decision in accordance with the Board's regulations.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING


YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGIITS
You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to
the court atthe following address:
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20439

The eourt must receive your request'for review no later than 60 calendar days
afrer the date this initial decision becomes final. See 5 U.S.C. $ 7703(bX1XA)
(as rev. eff. Dec. 27,2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file ontime.

RAz
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 19 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
19 Filed: 08/08/2014
I
The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this
statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be
dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed.
Cir. 1991).
If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the federal law thaf gives you this right. It is found in
Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. $ 7703) (as rev. eff.
Dec. 27,2012).. You may read this law as well as other sections of the United
States Code, at our website, http : /I www. mspb . s ov I app eals/us co de/htm
Additional information is available at the court's webslte, www.cafo.uscourts.gov.
Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se 'Petitioners and
Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice and Forms 5,

6, and ll.

RA8
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 20 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
20 Filed: 08/08/2014

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Office of the Clerk of the Board
w"" r' n gtJnl 15. H ?ffi 8i#t
P h o ne : 202-65 3 -7 2O0i F ax: 20253-7 1 30 : E-M ai I : mspb@mspb.qov
t4-3r04

ATTESTATION

I HEREBY ATTEST that the attached index represents a list of the documents
comprising the administrative record of the Merit Systems Protection Board in the appeal
of Eugene D. Johnson v. Department of Health and Human Services, MSPB Docket No.
DC'3443'14-0150-I-1, and that the administrative record is under my official custody and
control on this

on file in this Board


June2,2014
Date LAm D.
Clerk of the Board

RA9
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 21 15 Filed:
INDEX Page:
08/08/2014
21 Filed: 08/08/2014
Page I of2
EUGENE D. JOHNSON
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEAUTHA}TD HUMAN SERVICES

MSPB Docket No. DC-3 443-14-0750J-l

IA-REFORMACT MERIT
DATE OF RECEIPT
TAB VOLUME DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT OR ISSUANCE

I 1 Appellant - ritial Appeal November 76,2013

2 1 Appellant - Supplemental Documentation November 25,2073

3 1 MSPB - Acknowledgment Order December 02,2013

4 1 Agency - Agency Representative Addition December 16,2013

5 1 Agency - Motion to Dismiss and Stay December 16,2013


Discovery/Agency File
6 1 epettant - Response to Agency Motion to Dismiss January 06,2014

7 1 Appellant - Documentation of Harrassment Endured January 07,2074

8 1 MSPB - Failure to Serve Order January I0,2014

9 I MSPB - Failure to Serve Order January I0,20I4


10 I MSPB - Failure to Serve Order February 04,2074

11 1 MSPB - Failure to Serve Order February 17,2014

72 7 Appellant - Response & Exhibits February 25,2074

13 I Agency - Motion to Strike and Renewed Motion to February 27,2014


Dismiss
t4 1 MSPB - Initial Decision March 07,2014

l5 I MSPB - Certificate of Service March 07,2014

T6 1 Appellant - Response to Motion to Dismiss March 10,2014

RA To
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 22 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
22 Filed: 08/08/2014
Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the attached Document(s) was (were) sent as indicated
this day to each of the following:

Petitioner
U.S. Mail Eugene D. Johnson
8500 Matthew Maury Court
Spotsylvania, VA 22553

Reso t
U.S Mail Jean_neE. Davidson, Director
C ommerc ial Lttigati on Branch
Civil Division Classification Unit
U.S. Department of Justice
1100 L Street, N.W., Room I0I37
Washinglon, DC 2Q5:30

June 2,2074
(Date) I liam D. Spencer
Clerk of the Board

RA TT
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 23 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
23 Filed: 08/08/2014

Please type or print legibly. OMB No. 3124-0009


1. Name (last, first, middle initial)

Johnson, Eugene, D.
2' Present Address (number and street, citv, state, and zip code)
Address: 8500 Matthew Maury ct

City, State, Zip Code: Spotsylvania, Virginia, 22553, United States of America
3' Telephone numbers (include area code) and E-Mail Address
You must notify the Board in wrting of any change in your telephone number(s) or e-mail address while your appeal is pending.

nome: (540) 786-5507 Work:


Fax: (540) 786-5507 Cell:
E-mail Address: eugenedjohnson@comcast. net Other Phone Type:
4' Do you wish to designate an individual or organization to represent you in this proceeding before the Board? (You may designate a
representative at any time. However, the processing of your appeal will not normally be delayed because of any difficulty you may
have in obtainino a reoresentative-)

! Yes No
5. Name, address, and telephone number of the agency that took the action or made the decisions you are appealing (include bureau
or division, street address, city, State and Zip code)

Agency Name GSA and HHS (lnvoluntary transfer from HHS to GSA)
Bureau:
Address:
7th & D street SW GSA and 200 lndependence Ave HHS

City, State, Zip code: Washington D.C., Dstrict of Columbia ,20024, United States of Amerca
Agency Phone: (877) 696-6775

Your Federal employment status at the time of the decision


7 . Type of appointment (if applicable):
or action you are appealing:

NOT APPLICABLE
! Competitive ! SeS ! Excepted
I Postalservice E Oilrer (describe)
Career
I' Your occupational series, position title, grade, and duty station at the time of the 9- Are you entitled to veteran's preference?
decision or action you are appealing (if applicable): See 5 U.S.C.2108
Position Title:
Occupational Series 1 176 Building HHS Building NOT APPLICABLE
or Cluster:
DutY station: HHS Headquarters 2oo
Grade or Pay Band: GS_13

10 11
Length of Government Service (if applicable): Were you serving a probationary, trial, or initial service period at
the time of the action or decision you are appealng?

NOT APPLICABLE !Yes ENo


Appeal Number: 201331467
MSPB Frm 185-1, Page 'l (i1131201:)
sl'it?n Date: 11t16t2013 4:33:0e PM 5 CFR Parts 1201, 1208, and 1209
Conflrmation Number: 181627
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 24 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
24 Filed: 08/08/2014

Please type or print legibly.


HEARING: You may have a right to a hearing before an administrative judge. lf you elect not to have a hearing, the
administrative judge will make a decision on the bas's of the submissions of the parties. Do you want a hearing?

12. Do you want a hearing? I Yes f] No

E-Filing: Registration as an e-filer enables you to file any or all of your pleadings with the Board in electronic form. Registration
also means you consent to accept service of all pleadings filed by other registered e-filers and all documents issued by the
Board in electronic form. You will receive these as PDF documents at the e-mail address you provided the Board. lf registered as
an e-filer, you may file any pleading, or portion of a pleading, by non+lectronic means. You can withdraw your registration as an
e-filer at any tme.

13. Do you wish to register as an E-Filer in this appeal?


r' I elect to E-File fl I declne to E-File

1a. I certiff that all of the statements made in this form and all attached forms are true, complete, and correct to !
the best of my knowledge and belief.

Eugene David Johnson, Appellant Date:

Appeal Number: 201331467


MSPB Form 185-1 , Page 2 (11312011)
&Amqn Dale: 1111612013 4:33:09 PM 5 CFR Parts 1201,1208,and1209

Confirmation Number: 181627


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 25 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
25 Filed: 08/08/2014

or OMB 24-0009

Name (/as(, first, middle initial) Johnson, Eugene, D

1. ln which retirement system are you enrolled? 2. Are you a:

E csns ! Csns offset n FERS ! Current Employee E Annuitant D Surviving Spouse

E Other Otner (describe)


retired
3- lf retired, date of retirement, or if unknown, approximate date (month, day, year):
0712009
4. Describe the retirement decision or action you are appealing.

See Continuation Sheet for Response.

5
lf you are appealing an OPM retirement decison, have you received a final or reconsideration decision from OPM?

fl Yes E No

6' lf yo, are appealing a retirementdecision or action by a Federal agency other than OPM, have you received a flnal decision from that
agency?
NOTAPPLICABLE

7. Why do you think the decison or action was wrong?

See Continuaton Sheet for Response.

Appeal Number: 201331467


MSPB Form 185-3, Page 1 (I131201i)
Sil*rtn Date: 11t16t2013 4:33:09 PM 5 CFR Parts 1201,1208, and 1209
Confirmation Number: 181627
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 26 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
26 Filed: 08/08/2014

Gontinuation Sheet

4. Describe the retirement decision or action you are appealing.

I have had numerous and outrageous problems with GSA that haven't been corrected and shouldn't have happened. ln 2001 I
had an involuntary transfer to GSA from HHS. I was paid as a grade 13 at HHS but as a grade 12 at GSA. At GSA I received a
lot of stress and my health deteriorated due to the harassment I received at my job. I endured a lot of stress and mistakes by
the administration that need to be corrected. I have saved lhe government significant amounts of money in both agencies.
I had an initial case that was filed through the EEOC as a racial discrimination case. My case was denied because they said
that I did not prove a "Prima Facie" case and referenced several cases of law that were used to emphasize their point. This is
not totally correct as my case is not totally a racial motivated issue. However I firmly believe that this was the route that they
desired that I pursue, but this is not all of the circumstances placed against me while employed in the federal government.
I utilized the Federal Acquisiton Regulation to my advantage while working for the government in order to gain leverage wth
many of the contractors that I dealt with in the government. I saved a total of 3.5 million dollars as a result of my tenacious
work in the federal sector while examining contracts and scrutinizing costs. I firmly believe that this is the primary reason that
actions were laken against me. There were situations that existed in the agency at that time that consisted of friendships and
, all of lhern improper.thal ugejaken Aganst me asares.rtlt oLmy--slan-ce. I wasawarde_d_ a_GS--13 position from the
Merit System Protection Board as a result of actions that were improperly taken against me. I was not afforded protections
from senior management as a result of making this appeal at GSA. This is unlawful as the law atfords me protection under the
Whistleblowers Protection Act. This happened during the years of administration of John P Allen director and later Sharon
Banks. This case was reopened as a result of these two administrators. I couldn't validate my military service as proof of being
a Korean war vet that served honorably because my documents that showed proof were destroyed in a fire , I recently
received validations after a few years of requesting this information. These documents will be attached along with the money I
helped save.

Apmil Nyqber: 201331467 MSPB Form 185-3 Continuation Sheet


Submissio ate: 11t16t2013 4:33:09 PM
Page
confirmation Number: 181627
1
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 27 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
27 Filed: 08/08/2014

Continuation Sheet

7. Why do you think the decision or action was wrong?

l'have had numerous and outrageous problems with GSAthat haven't been corrected and shouldn't have happened.ln 2001 f
had an involuntary transfer to GSA from HHS. I was paid as a grade 13 at HHS but as a grade 12 at GSA. At GSA I received a
lot of stress and my health deteriorated due to the harassment I received at my job. I have saved the government significant
amounts of money through my service to my country.
I had an initial case that was filed through the EEOC as a racial discrimination case. My case was denied because theit said
that I did not prove a "Prima Facie" case and referenced several cases of law that were used 1o emphasize their point. This is
not totally correct as my case is not a totally racial motivated issue. However I firmly believe that this was the route that they
desred that I pursue, but this is not all of the circumstances placed against me while employed in the federal government.
I utilized the Federal Acquisition Regulation to my advantage while working for the government in order to gain leverage with
many of the contractors that I dealt with in the government. I saved a total of 3.5 million dollars as a result of my tenacious
work in the federal sector while examining contracts and scrutinizing costs. I firmly believe that this is the primary reason that
actions were taken against me. There were situations that existed in the agency at that time that consisted of friendships and

Merit
from senior management as a result of my actions. This is unlav'ful as the law affords me protection under the Whistleblowers
Protection Act.

As stated above, this case was reopened by the Merit Protection Board and they requested that I provided them with military
records, which I couldn't provide at that time because the records were destroyed in a fire. These records had to be recreated.
These records can be provided at this time.

nnffiflruy2ner: 20133f 467 MSPB Form 185-3 Continualion Sheet


Submissiort Date: 11 /1612013 4:33:09 PM
Page
confirmation Number: 1g1627 1
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 28 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
28 Filed: 08/08/2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARI)
WASIIINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE

EUGENE D. JOHNSON, DOCKET NUMBER


Appellant, DC-3443-14-0150-I- 1

v
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: December 2,2013
HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT


THIS APPEAL AND ITS PROCESSING. PLEASE READ THE
ENTIRE DOCUMENT CAREFULLY.

MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING FOR AGENCIES AND


ATTORNEYS AT THE WASTIINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE
DENVER F'IELD OFFICE

Effective Janaary 11, 2012, the Board launched a pilot program under
which the V/ashington Regional Officc (WRO) and the Denver Field Office
(DEFO) require all pleadings fled by agencies and attorneys who represent
appellants in Board proceedings to be electronically flrled (e-filed). This
requirement applies to all pleadings except those containing classified
information or Sensitive Security Iirformation (SS in all adjudicatory
proceedings before the Board. Agencies and attorneys in proceedings before the
V/RO and the DEFO must register as e-filers.
You will be notified by email after a document is e-filed. The e-filing
system automatically serves all e-filecl documents by e-mailing a notice of
electronic service to all registered e-file users. lf a pafty needs to be served a

RA Tz
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 29 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
29 Filed: 08/08/2014
2

paper copy, the system will notify you when you e-file a pleading and generate a

certificate of service for you to use as part of the paper pleading.


For additional instructions on e-filing, read the section below of this
Acknowledgment Order titled "Pleadings Submitted via e-Appeal Online," and
the Board's regulations at 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.14.

ACKNOWLBDGMENT ORDER
This offrce has received the appellant's petition for appeal. A copy of the
appeal is being sent to the agency with this Order. I am the administrative judge
assigned to this appeal.
I ORDER the parties to follow the procedures set out in the separate

notices below. If any pafty fails to follow my orders or the Board's regulations, I
may impose sanctions pursuant to 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.43. If either pafiy has a
question regarding any aspect of the case processing instructions set forth in this
order, he or she may seek clarification at the phone number listed under my
signature at the end of this order.

NOTICE TO TIIE APPELLANT


INTRODUCTION
If your appeal is timely filed, and within the Board's jurisdiction, you have
the right to a hearing on the merits of your case. If you requested a hearing, I
will schedule a hearing for you. If you did not request a hearing, you have 10
calendar days from the date of this Order to file a written request for one. If you
do not request a hearing, you waive your right to one. In that event, you and the
agenay will be given an opportunity to make written submissions before the
record on your appeal closes.

JURISDICTION
You state that you are challenging You state that you are appealing
numerous problems you have had with GSA and HHS beginning in 2001. The

RA T8
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 30 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
30 Filed: 08/08/2014
J

Board is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and has authority only to address the
types of matters listed in 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.3. In addition, appeals must be filed
with the Board within 30 calendar days of the action taken. None of these actions
you cited in your appeal occurred within the last 30 days and thus your appeal
appears to be untimely.
You have the burden of proving that the Board has jurisdiction over you appeal
and that it was timely filed. Accordingly,I ORDER you to file evidence and
argument to show a basis for the Board's jurisdiction over your appeal and to
prove that this appeal is timely or that good cause exists for waiving the filing
deadline. Your submission must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of
this Order. The agency may file a response on this issue within 25 calendar days

of the date of this Order. Unless I notify you to the contrary, the record on this
issue will close on this date. No evidence or argument on the jurisdictional issue
fled after the close of record will be accepted unless you show that. it is new and
material evidence that was unavailable before the record closed.. You have the
burden of proving that the Board has jurisdiction over your appeal. Accordingly,
I ORDER you to file evidence and argument to prove that this action is within
the Board's jurisdiction. Your submission must be filed within 15 calendar days
of the date of this Order. The agenay may file a response on this issue within 25

calendar days of the date of this Order. Unless I notify you to the contrary, the
record on this issue will close on that date. No evidence or argument on the
jurisdictional issue fled after the close of record will be accepted unless you
show that it is new and material evidence that was unavailable before the record
closed.

DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
. You may name a representative. If
you aheady have a representative, you
must fill out the enclosed "Designation of Representative" form and file it vith
the Board and with the agency within 10 calendar days of the date of this Order

RA 19 ts
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 31 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
31 Filed: 08/08/2014
4

unless you have included your representative's name, address, telephone number,
and signature in your appeal. If your representative has filed the appeal for you
and you have not personally signed the appeal or submitted a signed "Designation
of Representative" form, you also must file a signed "Designation of
Representative Form" with the Board and with the agency within 10 calendar
days of the date of this Order. If you name a representative after receiving this
Order, fll out the enclosed "Designation of Representative" form and file it with
the Board and the agency immediately after obtaining your representative.
You must immediatety notify the Board and the agency in writing of any
changes in the name, address, or telephone number of your designated
representative.
If you register as an e-filer (see information below), you can use electronic
filing to file a Designation of Representative, or to notify the Board of a change
in contact information.

DISCOVERY
Discovery is the procedure you may use to learn of any facts, documents,
or other evidence the agency has that may be helpful to your case. If you wish to
engage in discovery, initial requests or motions must be served on the other pafiy
within 30 calendar days of the date of this Order. Responses to initial discovery
requests must be served promptly but no late'r than 20 days after the date of
service of the other party' s discovery request or the MSPB order. Unless you are
filing a motion to compel, you must not submit your discovery requests md
responses to the Board. If you do, they will be rejected and returned to you. The
procedures used for discovery are at 5 C.F.R. $$ 1201'71-.85.
It is the policy of the Board to decide an appeal within 120 calendar days
of receipt. The Board expects all parties to assist inthe expeditious processing of
this case by honoring requests for relevant documents and producing material
witnesses without additional Board intervention.

RA 20
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 32 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
32 Filed: 08/08/2014
5

The regulations require that the parties attempt to resolve a discovery


dispute before filing a motion to compel with me. Thus, the party who disputes
the other's compliance must discuss the anticipated motion with the other party,
and they both must make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute and narrow
their disagreement. They must also include with any motion a statement
indicating that they have complied with this requirement. 5 C.F.R.
$ 1201.73(cX1).

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS
You may fle a response or objection to any motion filed by the agency.
Unless otherwise specified by me or the Board's regulations, your response or
objection must be filed with this office and served upon the agency within 10

calendar days of the date that appears onthe agency's certificate of service. Iwill
reject any untimely response or objection unless you show good cause for the
delay in frling. Note that if, prior to the close of the record, you fail to object
to any of my written or verbal rulings on a matter raised by you or the
agency, you will be precluded from challenging that ruling on petition for
review or cross-petition for review.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
FILING PLEADINGS \ilITH THE MSPB
A "pleading" is any written submission setting out claims, allegations,
arguments, or evidence. Pleadings include briefs, motions, petitions,
attachments, and responses. 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.4(b). Pleadings can be filed via
postal mail, facsimile (fax), personal or commercial delivery, or in electronic
format via e-Appeal Online (https://e-appeal.mspb.gov/). Pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
$ 120I.26, all pleadings filed with the Board must meet the following
requirements:
(1) All pleadings must be legible and either printed on8/z by 1l inch paper,
or formatted so thathey will print on Yz by 11 inch paper.

RA zT
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 33 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
33 Filed: 08/08/2014
6

(2) All pleadings must be f,rled by the date set by me or the Board's
regulations. The date of filing is the date your submission is postmarked,
faxed, the date of electronic submission if you e-file, or the date of
receipt if you personally deliver it to the Board's regional office.
Extensions of filing dates will only be granted if requested in writing and
if good cause is shown. A continuance of a hearing date will be
granted only if requested in writing in accordance with the Board's
regulation at 5 C.F.R. S 1201.51(c), which requires an affidavit or
sworn statement, and if you are able to show extraordinary
circumstances.
(3) All pleadings must be served upon opposing parties and their
representatives, must be accompanied by a certificate of service stating
(a) the names and addresses of the parties served; (b) the manner of
service (personally delivered, mailed, faxed, or electronic delivery); and
(c) the date of service. A certificate of service is attached to this Order
and lists the names and addresses of the parties who must be served in
this case. The attached certificate of service constitutes a model which
you may follow in preparing y our own certificate of service. The Board
may reject a submission that does not have a certificate of service. If you
register as an e-filr, a certificate of service will be prepared
automatically as part of the pleading you file online.

Pleadines Submitted in Hardcopy

When a pleading submitted by postal mail, fax, personal or commercial


. delivery includes three or more documentary attachments, the attachments should
be "tabbed." A "tab" is a dividing page, a portion of which extends beyond the
normal 8% inch width of the paper, and which contains a description or label.
When such a pleading is submitted via fax, each page of the attachments should
be sequentially numbered and the attachments should be preceded by a table of
contents describing each attachment and indicating the page on which it starts.
Special instructions for preparing the Agency's response to the appeal under
5 C.F.R. $ 120L25 are included below.
4ll documents within a tab must have new page numbers (by hand if
necessary) so that each document, within each tab, is re-numbered, from the first
page of the first document to the last page of the last document. This will allow
for specific page references to the record, by tab and by page number within a

RA zz
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 34 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
34 Filed: 08/08/2014
7

tab. The new page numbers should be placed in the bottom right-hand margin of
each page. If some pages within a tab are aheady numbered in the bottom-right
margin, parties should place the new page numbers just to the right of the original
page numbers.

Pleadines Submitted via e-Appeal Online

Electronic bookmarks and tables of contents take the place of physical


'When
"Tabs" in pleadings filed by traditional means. an e-filed pleading
contains three or more electronic supporting documents, each attachment must be
identified, either by filling out the table for such attachments at e-Appeal Online,
or by uploading the supporting documents in the form of one or more PDF files in
which each attachment is bookmarked. 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.1a(gX3).
Regardless of whether it is uploaded or entered online, each pleading will
be assembled into a single PDF document; which will include all electronic
attachments, and will contain sequential page numbers. E-filers need not
manually paglnate their pleadings and atlachments.
Pleadings are subject to a 10 megabyl.e size limit. To avoid exceeding this
limit, e-filers are encouraged to scan documents in black and white and to adjust
settings to limit frle- size. If what would otherwise be a single pleading must be
broken into multiple pleadings because of the size limit, each should contain the
same descriptive title, together with a "Part" designation in parenthesss, e.9.,
Agency File (Part A), Agency File (Part B), etc.
For more information about e-filing, read the Board's regulation at
5 C.F.R. $ 1201.I4, or visit e-Appeal Online (https://e-appeal.mspb.gov/) and
click the link entitled "How does Electronic Filing Work?"

REGULATIONS
For more detailed information on these procedures, you should refer to the
Board's regulations in 5 C.F.R. Part 1201. The regulations are available for

RA 23
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 35 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
35 Filed: 08/08/2014
I
review in agency personnel offices, law libraries, some large public libraries, and
at the Board's website (http://www.mspb.gov). Please note that the Board's
regulations were substantially revised as of November 13, 2012. Printed
copies, therefore, Ey not reflect the applicable regulations. You must
assure that you rely only on the current regulations.

NOTICE TO THE AGENCY/INTERVENOR


AGENCY RESPONSE
I ORDER the agency to read, comply with, and/or respond to any and all
portions of the "Notice to Appellant" which are applicable to it. I also ORDER
the agency to serve me, appellant, and appellant's representative (if applicable),
with the material listed on the enclosed schedule and any other information
required by 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.25 within20 calendar days of the date of this Order.

DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
The agency must designate a representative. I ORDER the agency to file
the name, address , and telephone number of the person authorized to act for the
agency on the enclosed "Designation of Representative" form within 20 calendar
days of the date of this Order. The representative must have authority to settle
this appeal or be able to directly reach someone with that authority on short
notice.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES


SETTLEMENT
The Board strongly encourages the settlement of the appeals that come
before it. Even where discussions between the parties do not result in settlement,
they often help to define the issues and assist the parties in agreeing to
stipulations. I therefore urge the parties to contact each other to discuss the
possibility of settlement as early in this proceeding as possible. I am available to
assist in the discussions. The parties should discuss concrete, specific settlement

RA z
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 36 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
36 Filed: 08/08/2014
9

proposals unless either party concludes in good faith that no compromise of any
kind is possible. They must also be prepared to discuss with me the status of any
settlement discussions. See 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.41(bXl2) (the administrative judge
is authorized to "[h]old prehearing conferences for the settlement and
simplification of issues").
If the parties agtee to settle this appeal, and to enter the agreement into the
record, the Board will retain the authority to enforce its terms if the Board has
jurisdiction over the appeal. However, if they do not enter the agreement into the
record, or if jurisdiction has not been determined, the Board will have no
authority to enforce the agreement.

FOR THE BOARD:


Sarah P. Clement
AdmlniStratiV Judge
Washington Regional Office
1901 South Bell Street, Suite 950
Arlington, VA 22202-4802
Phone: (703) 756-6250
Fax: (703) 756-7112
V/TDD (800) 877-8339
Enclosures

RA z5
Eugeoo
Case: D. Case:
14-3104 Johnson
CASE v.PARTICIPANTS
14-3104 Document: 16 -Document:
DTIHS-nC-14-0150-I-1
ONLY WASHINGTON NF.NAL
Page: 37 15 Filed:
Page: OFFICE
08/08/2014
37 Filed: Page I of I
08/08/2014

Eugene D. Johnson v. DHHS DC-M-A150=I-1

Chung, Dinh < Dinh.Chung@mspb.gov>


Tue 1/7120'1412:43 PM

ro:VASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE <WASHf NGTONREGIONALOFFICE@mspb.gov>;

r,

Dinh Ghung al
rrl
Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of the Clerk of the Board ?t
1615 M Stree N.W.
*-
Washington, DC 2O4l;9 Vj
-

From: konica.copier@ mspb.gov <konica.copier@mspb,gov>


Sent: Tuesda January A7,2OL412:27 PM
To: Chung Dinh
Subject: Message from KMBT_C552

hts ://pod5 I 04 1 .outlook.com/owa/


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 38 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
38 Filed: 08/08/2014

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Office of the Clerk of the Board
16'15 M Skee N.W.
Washingon, D.c. 204194002
P hoe: 202-53-7 200; F ax: E-llalL mspb@msb.qov

January 7r2nl4
NOTICE TO:
Eugene D. Johnson
8500 Matthew Maury Court
Spotsylania, \fA 225 53

SIJBJECT: Appellant's Response to HHS Motion to Dismiss dated llSlt4 an


Filings dated Il3ll4
Eugene D. Johnson v. Department of Health and lfuman Services
DOCKET NUMBER : DC-3443-14-0150-I-1
F3

We received the document identified in the SUBJECT above and have serit it to i
rt
appears
another office because it offce's attention. y li
rt
to
future correspondence related o the address showSeloraf
i
* ;:l

Vt[E FORWARDED TIIE DOCUMENT TO: F i r-)


*
F

Washington Regional Office
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
1901 South Bell Street
Suite 950
Arlington, VA 22202-4802
Telephone No. (703) 756-6i,250
Fax No. (703) 756-7112 '
V/TDD 1-800-877-8339

RA zI
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 39 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
39 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-5-e1l ?!.:3t FREltf :EU.GEhl .Hh+SON

Honorzble Judge l.h P, Clsnrc.


202'653.7200
202'65'-7130
l'l$FB Hadquarte*, Wa:hington, C

FIHS 1tdon to dirrlw n DC-3{+A-14{}l${l'1.

B Urg=*u tr ForRcvlw t PhaeCommons 'il PlearcRepty n flaaseReclale


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 40 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
40 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-5-E14 ?1;31 FROI'1:EUGENT HNSON 5'47e,fA43 :1??537L3 P,?I?

l{onorable Judge Sarah P. Clement


United sates of Amerl@
Merit Systern Pttection Boatd
Washngton Regional Offce

Regarding Ageny Molian to ismiss by Depatment of Heafth and Human Services. on Docket Number
DC-3449- 14-0150-t-1, Dated Dece m b e r L6, OLg P lead ?ng N u m ber

Iwould tike to make very cleer that I wes ndeed employed by the Food and Drug Adminstraqn (FDA),
a divisian of Heafth and Human Services ({HS} durlng the tirne in question pertolning to these evenl.5, I
applied for and was Brnled a 65-1? positlon by FDA in 1989 and was not an employee of GSA lt s very
imponant that there ls no confuslon regardlng the time that I wa employed by GSA in 2001. I only
mde mentfon of thlsmploymenttofurtherelaborate on rnyhistoryof employmentinthefedel
governffient,

It
s very clear m the documEnts in nry file and the correspondence that I hava presented that these
events surrounding rny se occurred whlle I was employed by FDA. Further, I am certain tht upon
exanatlon of my personnel flle, that these fcts wlll be established wlthout question. lt is for these
re.sons that I respectfully request of the Admlnfstrative Judge to ofder th release and examinatlon of
my prsonnelfiles.

/ pL

RA 29
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 41 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
41 Filed: 08/08/2014
,rN-3-e14 tei49 FROMEU6EN( .HI.ON

To: MSPB f02)653-713t

FROMT ugene,Johnsgn

RE EC-314S14.150-J-1

DATE. Jnuary?,2tL4

? nPeges includlngcover Frye


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 42 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
42 Filed: 08/08/2014
JRN-3-?14 L?=5 FR0M:EUGENE rlNS0N 541e,6'g,43 r??6537t3 P.?/9

o'

Unltcd Sttes General acroundng Ofllce


Report to Congressional Requester
GAO

Decembcr 1999
FOOD AI\ID DRTJG
ADMINISTRATIONT
EACILITY
Requirements for y
Building on a,
Floodplain Met

tt
rt
GAO a r filllililtl

GAryGGD-gO.L1

RA 3t
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 43 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
43 Filed: 08/08/2014
JRN-3-14 t?tS FROI'I:EUGENF,FINSON 547e643 :L??6537L3 P.3/9

fi"ta,

(broken pipe, roof teak, accidentl 6re rinlder activarion, etc.) is a


Eratqr probabUtf than Ls damage from aflood condirion. To protecr rhe
data stoed oo the compure, FSl{ ofEciss plan to develop ntigation
plan for the new facility ttgt they sey $'iU be appropriae t lhe natue of
ghe sfms irstalled, the daestored, s$d
risk factors at the me the
.building ls oceuled.

Tte decision to locnro tlre malr computr rft'rr in the bssement, of the
te dcsigr team
g:Drt
rcPrcsentdvt dstatr
frorn FDA's Offi

tn @1r IUUti, UliA 8Iuird a I;t.l.Cre site, ruediakly aAjacnt ro


Backgrorrnd e CoIIege Paf( MeFor Saton, in College Park, MD, specificlly for the
new CFEAN facilif at a cod of S4 mIllon Pat oftesi ie locaed on a
entlY

When the CFSN facititf is completed, iEto hare four stories sbove
ground atd r basemenq nt t is to hsre sbout 4IO,00O squa feer of
offcq laboratory, snd flpolt spce. the building is scheduled to be
ready for occupenc7 in Ocrobcr 2001. the !t cost to desi6n.and
cor-tgtsrct the buldlng tduding fte cast of the land is stirnared to be
about 886 rnillion

fhc Federal &nergencV ltrnngemrn Agency (FEMA) h the federat agency


Espondble for oo@lstr Fsnemen FEIvf hss promrJEed
replstioru wit Eoodplsh mangfent criteria to be used by strte and
toc govemment+ fn SBt of ltsryland, the Deparunent of the
nvimnment ([fDE) tr egpongible for oodpleln manugernent

As psrt of FAb consoli.trrlon of lB proEaffs ln the \{achingn, D.C,


metrapo[rsr seq F'D' k r4 wcre the fedezl office building aLm C
Street, Sftr, lV*slringtoq .C. tDA plans to decommission the laboraores
inthe buil ro tuming
the spece Capirol h.as
plecsd aome lnttd, n thls bulldlng for congrcssional rc,

To dctrmlnc GStr' rhoriy to contruct n'$ CFAN faclity for FDlt


Scope nd we reviewed rhc legislato fua aurhorzed ttre Secrerary of Healtj and
Methodology Humarl Srwlcer rftd th Atlnlnlstarorof GSA ro corrsouda FA

?rr I OlO/qr.OcIT m^'. ri{ Fl4ftr' te Collflc frt, lD

RA 3z
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 44 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
44 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-e14 151 FROM:EUGENE dNsON 547A,e,43 t?e653713 P.4/9

['EStt2E

yea$. GS,{,'s scal year t act


nos lnclude flnds for this.projec't"

GS' fiscalyea 1992 appropriations at appropriared S200 milllon for


coslddon, Blte ecgrisition, planning rnd design, srd corLtnction of
orye's Countes, MD.' Ttre
rietiorr act stated that the
6f
ff,
Frado
lu

T/l/5 /l Tc Conferetce Bagortnccompanyltg the lscat year l9gz appropri$ors


$ctlso codtanedlan$rage deaingFD GsAi HIIs, and the Ofe of
Manrgement ud Budget (Ol,B) to nrbmit a pla.n for the eonsolidation
M,(ortz projects frc ftndng needs 10 the $propriarioru comniftees by no
Iater llrrn December 81, lggl.t

'ftre Seste Approprladons Committe Repo# sccompanying the


Tleasuy, Poqtt $ervee, ard Gcneral Govemrnen appropriaions act for
6scal f'ur 19q3 atd that dgptt clea insFrctiong, thc rdminisration
had not rpended r*y of te l\rnd.s aheady appropriated, and no funding

fi plun hsd bec submitted s prevlottsly directed. The Committee ststed rhat
ig gtrongy suppoTd rhe project bc8rse, in sddition to the inetEciencies
resuting om bcing scattere<t arnong so many different uildlngs, mariy of
FDA' fcflldeg wee outrrioded Bnd ohsolete, even hazadots.

The FD BeviglirSon Act nd subsequent approprla,ons act,


the fo fiscal I

a couolldation plsn for the FDA headquarte pro*rarru ori


March 16, lgg4. Thlr plan lled for CFSAN to be located in Prince
Georgete Cornty
rzl.rc V,1ilt'-
(/'to61Y f/v/t
rp. L t tat, lo.|1, B+o(00r)
.*6:lJ tO /1/tf
t,Cdrr Rr l{o, l0P.l,(t*L\
4u,1&.1>.i
td.
Pco r:1fS
E" Rcp. Nc JVlc!3, n.TJ (lWr.

tlo I O^OrcDfl'7 FA'r Vcr r<flq Ir Cotlqf Pk' HD

RA 33
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 45 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
45 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-e14 1?:5 FROM:EUGENE- .HNSON 547B'6e43 Le?6537t3 P.5/9

BI

Flgurr ll Ertetlng Plncc Gcorgc's County.dcftnad t0.Yrr Flaodplln ln Arc Suryundlng tha Praporad F Fcilitv

fud Srncfi turtrE

FD ltr
'. t. li

loroG{ rry

tkrumodUory

F\rf 8d

-
-
HrBrdr Coul

Fr I GAOtGD#'I? FD.'r Dlr FrrIIV t Colcar P.rI, XD

RA 3
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 46 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
46 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-E14 1:5? FROII:EUGENE NSON 5478',e'43 t?6s37t3 P.6/9

Et6g

Prqir:il Tttt comperlson hou,E flrat thc proposcd FTlh davclo'pmcnr would aor havc ony
dvrse lmpt oD ttlc lood clctrtloru rDEEe.m ol tc itc. The computodoru do idicrc
t 3 llthl hcrcarc (0, I foot) ln tlE 2'year flood elewdon will occw ar thc downEtroaB
cnd of tc sfta t{qwet=r, te cornpuEdoru ndise tbe Inqcasc wqqld b dsspatcd
bclor fc u?6Fesm etd of thc sitc, lTle l snd 100.rcs flood etevuon will br fowcr
alhtly tn tol ru for proged eonrtlon4 ccaure the new uildirg wilt be F.rnhcr
o*uy om tl f tn tl td.dng budlrw. Wlth r budlng fher awrf fqrn h6
6lEmr tll! ! uallslc l,o rcr,rs fh go rdll hcrte, {urltrg he Oood elwalor o
dccsc,

MDE requestcd tht thc followingthree tnu* be gubmitH ts irfor review


and cornrnent befom i would altl}lotlz the superstnrcture of che faciliff to
b brlll
. Fins H-Z bc!$rsr cmputstsne of the floodplain these !,vere to
include all ne'r chngea qadg o the 0oodplaln due t the new FDA
faclllry. G$.,f edvisedrs that this was submittd to MDE on Mch 2, LgW,
r Structrrral dedgr clculadons of the baeementwalls snd fowrdstion:
these werc o show that the deslgt took into account tlre addltional
hydr,ostntic forceg tlr.at wOuld rtslt r''lren hlgh war tables se
experlenced. GS advfeed us fi the sbrcnral calculafforg were
submitted tc MDE on August 9, 1990,
r T\ro se of fiaI igned ionstrction ptaru: these were to i$dicare whst
wilt be buflt on the sit as well as tryht pographtc chnngcs wiII occar on
ttre slt, G8 adt4scd ts tl.Bt thee eowtftcton plans were submitd to
MDE ontugrz?, 1999,

0u SeplTlbef ?, l9gt, [{DE approvtd tlre construcdon of the


supetnctua

Computer opcnono o b horsd i the baserni of the OFEAII


Computer Operations fcit& There ae to be between 16 and 20 gervers tocad in tlre basement,
Are to Be Housed in along with otlrer buildlng support comonents--.9., mecharid space,
the Basement of the fitrress centr, health eentrr snd laboratory stnage. F, offictslg
New CFSA,I Facility infomed us thr sner sn xhugtive review of the retated constrlfltg,
alteraativec, and opportunles, tlte decision to locat tJre main cemputr
room in the boement of the new fscility ws6 reached by cunserrsus of the
project tean. ThIs 4sm onaisted of te afchrtect{nfneerlnE cor.sult8rts
and reprentativ== of GSA and t|. Ttrc F representativer vrere
sIedd om FDAb Divisicrr of Faclies Planning, Engineering and
SafeWand bom CFEI'N, whleh isto occupy thenew filiw.

P,ot C^CVOGDrT TAtt ilcr pa" LE Coll|? Pt' lD

RA 3s
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 47 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
47 Filed: 08/08/2014
JAN-3_A14 1:53 FROM:EUGENE,INSON 547s6e43 t?e6537L3 P.7/9

B.!8S62

met lhe needs of the prqgarn, ard proviled better sontlol for Lhe urrient
temperatr'e requirefnents of rhe omputer room.

The desigrtean decided to $ve priori$ to wirrdow space lor otces and
lbotoEies. tre dedgn corlflhrirs ard FDA officials told rs tht putting
the comDuttr operaong on anotherfloor htgher up in the buildhg would
have foced pgram sscq elther offces or laboratories, into the much
le desible basement spacewithno windows, {tre design team
olained th.uly{tlt the way the butldlng hs ben designed, every
laborarcry and leboraroryofEce will hve fhe benet of nural daytighc
HaIf of ttre offces sre to hsve d't rttffial [ght, and ihe oghe hslf are to
receive indkect mtrrral lighl ttrough cleretorles in the offf ce corridor
wsl- They told us that.they clso coruldered physical security needs to
engrre t.1 conpulre would not bG hdncablq t yart{elcm g
intrrferencc frun out-sfde courceg

Drdrtg olr vter lte dtd tle conseucgon slt near tJre end of the
fourdaon confruction phase of the prqiect to obsofle how the basement
was being conslctd and verify tha some ol rh desgl fetues re were
told about hd been incorporated into ttre fasility, We also revewed tlre
final consuction drawt*gs and the sped-cations for the constinrcion o(
the superstructu of the building to conrm tht the plans included the
sysme and eqripment we wele told hd b*r deeed tnuo the fadry
mttiga fl k of warer enring the butlding, Ttris work verifed tht te
following festus hwe ben built into the facilr, or a lncluded in the
consrrcdon dnwlngs and speci.6cetions be used to complete the
facility,

r Ttre basemerit rvalls and 6oor slb have been corsErsted of reinforced
oncret. Thc waErproong syrstmtlut has bn lnstalled ereat t
watetproof envelope under the basement sls^b End up the 33pn[ urllq
to protectthe bsemert from water ifilarion
o The building h a comptet undersl d pertmetr drein8e stem to
remove welsr comng up from below the stnrctuer 8s well at wtcr
approachn t}re outside ol the facility a gound level. The piping sptem
ir^stJted to rmoye waer iennnat In a pumping station tocatd outside
the waerproofed basementend therefore will not bring gntundwar into
the buildirU: Four pumps cFabe of pumping 800 galtoru perminutc each
r.re o b tstlld ln the pumpngstadon. Ttrese pumps ge io be
sequenced to come on gs the water inflow incesses. 11 watr to b

ll clcnanort lf rrr fr of r butdf ES r.r low tlrc roo& of the ol4r Pnt ol th. buldlnt' vldi
fndo; lcr rdnricit l* ro rrE trrl htrlor rc,

Prr o OAO,C{O.Oo.t? DA' Nc F.-clUtt t! Collclc lrI, llD

RA 36
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 48 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
48 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-E14 1:53 FROI'I: EUGENE ,INSDN 547A^e43 t??6537t3 P.8/9

4.28625

(61Sro' r l)prco
ar4l{tl cacl rtrofod,
trqrd, nd o(,(d
fh tilr 6p. v$h i a
gtflltrEl Eyarfl
ir|lralled fopr
loUldnc nag
s rmrlt ol tho
hJo!6tEf ba ftqn
rchyptc
pn:arol llod
rsla

(l SE hr t' rFrrr
fo+T itgc5r0 lqttrlf la
ottr* ib-of lt slldhft
wilhf.l| lzfidr mcsdrrh
t rcarputrr lruim
a fErd r b t . lrrdcfl

( ortd csrs s
rtnr*qPabdtrrtd
6aa rtr.nfsrr
dsgh|o tro priry
nrprurvdstt
Ohdg.al|rrt
lrc'r3 r1 lll
rho p.P.rrltr a
2+lodqaSrrP
prrrgdrcriltt
./, Efirtlcrdta
rt .
(6.sltrrdE
Oeep rd orawg*
Tl|Farttrrrp
?aErrb
{offis.
$oqtrGA.

Fro tl o^oroD{ll? EDl' Ntr FrclllU h f,allcr FrI' ilD

RA 3z
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 49 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
49 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN_3-E14 t?l54 FRONI ELJGENE ,INSON 547s6443 t?6537L3 P.9/9

B.tss28

FectlitieshEetup PA'$Q proSlss to be updared


CFSN photq re Eo be archived. tle 6id th employees have rcsess o
the lnteruet and can sccess thls informuion. Srnher, once mnth the
ltector ls holdlng I'hour lneetfrgs with el} intre$red employees wh ue
$ven the opponunity o rise quesoru and receive answr. A nrember of
e plaming em for the Gollege Park faciitr hss ben usked to arnd
eh of the latte meetlngr to arurweranyquesons abour he buildtne
ardmove.

We provdcd copes of o dreft of this report to the -A.dminisrraor of Genersl


Agency Comnenrs and Sentces ndte FDA Comntgdoner lor comnenl
Our Evaluation
On December L 1999 we recehd oral comnents tom GS Ndonal
Cptl Eegion Assrtrt egionI Mminstror for thc Puhlic Buitdings
Seruise ard from the hblfc uildint Service's OEicr of portfslo
Managemenf They qonctEd wi.th the rEport without funher coruuenr.

On December IW9, wereceived oralcerflrrtents om $re rrecto of


CfSAI{ nd FI}r's Dlvtsion of Fbctties planrring, Englneering rld Safery,
Ttey concrured wth the infornaton as presented in the repcrt and
provded some technicel c}rlfiedons th we hve tncoporad where
approprieta

We arneeendlng copies of this repo to Representariye Robert E. l/ise,


Rsnl<ing Democrdc Member, House Subcommittee on Economic
Developmerrt, Prble uildings, Hazerdous Msfersls anrl Plpellne
Tlansportadon SenatorGeoge V, Vohovich, Chairrnan, slrd Snaror Max
S. Boueua, urking MinorQy Member, Senote Subcomrnttee on
Transpoaaon and Infgtcttrre Sen^ator Paut S. Sarbancs; Scnator
BarbaralL Mikutrki; egresentative Steny Hoyeq the Honorable David J,
Bsrttt, of Grnersl Services and tlre Honora.bleJane E,
Henney, ^dminisgaor
Qomm&sioner, fD.rL opies wfll be milde avallblero orhers upon
requf,sL

Fl tI O O/OODI7 FDAtr ilcr FrclII l,! Cotls F.rk, HD

RA 38
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 50 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
50 Filed: 08/08/2014
JffN-3-14 1:19 FROI4'EUGENE. FINEON

--4t51
(weltr's

b -3'}fnlstvr
Uqf-ti

W--i1/3-/(-o/s-t-l
3t attl
JLMIY

PqJ rrt
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 51 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
51 Filed: 08/08/2014
JRN-3-E14 t?It9 FROMEUGENE dT.SON s4we6843 .t?537t3 P..6

:lCir.A",
+t'
DFP.\.\TtllEi\fT DF HE\X'TII & EIUrril\ral SERlnrCES Public ticaitfi Srvlco

Food and Orug Admnirration


fiockville MD 20857

,_JUL 3 ?02
be Elonoable Iobn lU. lVner
United Sffies Seuator
4900'lVorld Ttadc Cettcr
'lVcst
101 Man Street
Norfolk, \rrgine 235 I 0-t690

Dca Senetor Wsrogr:


1

you f,or IcttEr 20, o j'rour cog$ttueEt, Mr, Johsoa


regardng aFood and Drug (FDA or thc gency) facility aud the stqs of his
emplomcaL

Pror to occupying lts new bulding in College r Food Safefy


aod Applied Nutition (CFSN) occupiedFcd C. FD.
apratsd the faclity rnder a delegation ftom th General Services rtnrfiristation (GSA.) fron
1985 until 20AL wheq CFSAN begss b reloetian frou Federal Bufldng B.

GSA.'s pocy for thc causfer of building operatioa autbority ineluded tmusfeniug back to the
cribed for bulding operatous. this Eansfcr
needed to rhaintnathebuiHing. Such was
FllA. He was origitJ enployed by GSA
was trasfcrred to tbe Dcpartmcnt ofHealth d Hr*ran Seavicos aad FA when thebuldug'*
oerations wef delgeEe{ nnd ften cousfred ack wsn the Ageucy released its delegaron to
GSA aud took occupancy of the College Park buldiug.

Mr. Jsbor also rsed ooncr.rur'regnrdiug tho open des of tbe College Fark laboratory
oitity, Tbc dccign oJ tbe labqrafory wes ceted br ou,e sf thc foomost laboratory ptanaing
ms iE the c0uaky, GPR, in conjunclon with the architeartral fimr ofl(llm, MpKinell and
Wood chitcts. The design was e result of collabor':atve bffort with afrsk foce of seior
CFSAN scienfifis rcrsonnel and mnnagers. The open des was selected as tbe preferred
configurotion hfter visiting other ststcof-thc.at fecilitee used by lnduety, governmen ard
acadmis- As a loboratory th* coufouqs to tbc guidljnes for biolafery lwel-2factries
established by tho National lsgtutes of Hsalth E isee Coneol and ,-
Prevention, cress contamination of biologfca will not oceir whe,r using
fPPropriate laborafo_rf Pocedures tn
qouoert thoprovidod saf4y cquipment" Ttis facih
becn rccolnized, for is xcellcnc n dign, whish trcournges sonttc collubortion su
ihd use ofeguipmenf. 'i

RA o
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 52 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
52 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-e14 L?z? FROll:EUGENE .INSON 547e,,8,43 1.6's37L3 P.3/6

tpHrtrFatmvE
WrffiAi
L, ugntt'e

.lelc la,no.

Drr Mr-Rd;

Dtrrr t ttlttt, tl,D, r llrtgo Qe ?1.D, JUllr


5rrVt.l{on4 D,O. ' l'lulro . tan, DO. o
Jilrn R gc|t*e H.D, r l,tlt T
SmmU t?|nr, ;tt$H,r fllF . I.H'f ffrlrr
ltd tlrggfr, Ft,S.lt,r lllp r

RA T
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 53 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
53 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-e14 L?t? FR0l"1:EUGENE lNs0tl 541A6e43 te6537L3 P.4/6

Rppmnuoc( FAnrY PHYgclANs (s10) 710-9100


Spoylwnld O Fax (!40) 710-9065
10482' Georgetown Drve
Spotsylvaniar VirEthla 22553 1,r14n,. ra ppfa m l yp hyscia ns. co m

lfyou have ary questions, please feel ec to all me Et 540.710.9E00.

DemB Bown,lv

DBB/mh:D9232919

Dan B. r0wn, M.D, . Wllson Ooo M.D, + Julle M. Floyd, M.D. Rafael 0. I'temandez, M.D.
' .
$onya D, Flofland, D.O, ..Thomas A. Janus, ,O. r Danlel G Mukln, M,D. . J. Thomas Ryan, M,D,
Joseph P. Schuetter M., o Marla T. vnDertfel|, M.D. r Nancy L, wang, M.D,
Smanfia fmnz, M.S.N,' F\P.J. Plper Schlesser, f"l,S.w., NP{ r Crol Ddson, M,S.N., FNP-C
Rachel Hugglns, f'|,S,N,, C-FNP r Heldl Slmpson, f'4.S.N,, C-FNP

RA z
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 54 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
54 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-a14 L?:?L FROII:EUGENE lNsoN 547A6A43 t??6t37L3 P.5/6
lDuotfld{Agtililf
.riltitl^l^rDntll!
rrcoYa l,ffiF

M,udcyBtotrr lt PR d
RoEionl Dcputy Dirccu
Gctul Scrviccc Adniniuon
3ol ?sffi, s.w.
i,odu7022
lttringtou, D.C. z04ffl

Dt lrrf!. Ercok:

68

Mr. Jtt'trfutcyphYtr

F Ult.

Scrtly'

Associttt fs
Flnsil nd Busilffi Pcrrtioar

RA 3
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 55 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
55 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-e14 t?z?1. FROI'4!zuGENE INSN s47A6843 t36537L3 P.6?6

W'' Warncr
HoorbLe Jobn
P age2 - fre

quesons' prease tet

contacring us about tbis


attcr. If you have further
Tha'r you again for
uslsow.

K Hubbard
Snior Associate Commissioner
for Polio ?lanning, andLegislation

RA
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE
14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 56 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
56 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-aE!14 9.-L7 FR|ELIGENE ,INSON S47sffi45

hIt453
-1t{

-JYll/Str,/
luq{
fKorvl'

3, et'l
SvMy

fnctut\,r{i &wR 9P*


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 57 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
57 Filed: 08/08/2014
JRN-3-?14 9':tE FR0ll:EUGENE,INSON 541e6s43 te?653tL3 P.?/4

TO: Merft System Protestlon Board

FROM: Eugene D. Johnson

1.oZ

Subjct: Hrassrnent endured from both FDA anrl GsA

Please refer to Docket #: DC-3443-U0150-I-1, letter addressed to SenatorJohn Warner lncludlng HHS's
rspoflse, docto/s leners.

I have received the t{HS response ln regards to nly cese. ln thls agenry statement dated July 3, ZOQ,
lHS stated that "l was orlnatly employed at GSA, was transferred to the Department of Health and

l{uman Services and FDA when the bufldlng operailons were delegated." That statement is not true. ln
1986, I began ernplqyment wlth the Health and Hunan Serulces; my performance rating at tht time
was a WL'13.

Between f989-1990, I appled for a position at FDA s a tchncal bufldlng sarylce specialis I began
FY
employment es a G5'12. I worked closely with scientists at the FDA, as well as CFSAN at FOB 8. To my
knowledge, I had an outstanding work perforrnan, lt exceeded settsfa{t0ry, Ths nvoluntarily transfer
to GSA fs found not to be In accordance wfth OPM Regulations, What raid the objections in the
agency's decision to transfer me n be nated in thE above referenced document. 9 CFSAN sclentists
reviewed the floor pfan for the College park facility. They ndicated that the buldlng woutd not be large
enough to eccommodate allthe neds and operational functions of the goverhmentagencies. They also
found that the site where the bullding war belng constructed wat in the wet lands. We spoke with the
Speaker of e House concerning thls marter. The speaker of the House me wlth rhe cFsAN sclentists
and assigned his legal staff to report the shortcomlngs of not being abfe t0 fllthe deslgned spaca As a
result, they had to rent space from the UniverslW of Maryland to accommodate the mass spec
labgralory. This was necessn/ because of the locatlon of the uildln deslgn; rnany changes would
have to e rtde n order to rnake the facility operational. Due to mV observatlon, and whistle blowng
actvfty, t led to the nvgtuntarily lrnrfer to GSA, This is !o statcd n the above dcument, "Mr.
Iohnson rased concems regarding the open design of the College park butldlng."

RA s
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 58 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
58 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-E14 9T8 FROM:EUGENE INSON 547e6e43 1ee653?13 P.3/4

Belore lwas transferred, I appUed for 65-t? a the Fogd and Drug Admnistration tnd wes accepted Into
the position whlch I remalned until Octobr2ol-. The Merit Protectlon Board reviewed my
employment at the FDA. ln 20OO I was awarded a pr.omotion to GS-13 byJudge Clancy, I was paid as a
GS-13 for my services at HHS untlf mV unsfer. I began employment at GSA from 2001to July 2@9. I
applled for several posltions in GSAfor G5-13, each time I was denfed even though my performance
standards exceeded expectttion. ln one lnstence, ln 2OO7 I applfed for a postion at College Park as a GS-
13. FDA sent rpresentatlve and the evaluation of the posltlon I applied. FDA was a part of the
selection commlttee; I wos denfod the opportunity to serve t College Fark. The candldate that was
selected was later lnvolved in brlbery and removed from th potlton at College Park. I ws harssed on
the job continuously from the begf nnlng to th end of my employment at GSA due to my whistleblowlng
efforts to teduce federal couts, My dsctors sent letters tc the Regional Managers of G4, whch I wll
anach to thls document, The retaliation for mywhistle blowing ctvlty ln regards to Cotlege Park and
overcharged contracti durlng my tenure at GS led to pain and sufferlng on and off the job, This caused
hehh issues some of whlch are irreverslble and have contributed to my being disabled slnce leaving
GSA July 2009, I was hospltalied for approrimately 3 weeks. My health really deterlorated and raised
life-threatening concerns; h ls well documented t GSA.

Additionafty, as a result of my reporting gv?rFrlclng GSA contracts to the lG and Fgt, the Merlt
Protection Board reopened my cese. The Merit Protectin Board Is lnvolved with both my FDA and GSA
cases, They only requested my mifitary records, whch were not redly availsble but I submitted them in
2013 after my rllrement. I am requesting that the Mefit Protectlon Eoard submt ther fincfngs to 54
for a resoluton to the case file at GSA. lt ls known tht 63A was lnvolved in the College Park acquisltfon.

f am requesting that the cere with FDA and 654 be further revewed. ln addtlon, I am requested that
HHS revlew thelr records and determlne that I wag an FDA employee slnce 1990 and have worked
satlsfactorlly. Both SA and HHS were involved in the candidate selectlon whlch denied me promoton
to a G5-13 postton al 65A, My career was damaged by the FA nd ths acquisition of College Perk
faclllty. The Merit Protection board revewed ths cge t GSA efter my retirement and concluded that
thre wre wrongdoings done by GSA, The deputy drector at GSA, Sheron an and John Atlen, wero
lnvolved n the job selection process, both of which denied me the opportunity to advance during my
term of employment, My performance $/as reported as a tevel 4, whTch is ebov"the norm and records
that have been sent. Durng rny renure at GSA, ir was rny bellef and my appeal to th Mert Protecton
Board that I concluded that both agencles wers lnvolved fn the reprisals that I have suffered at GSe.

The ollege Park desned facillty was flawed due to the location. Ths hs been o contlnuous problem
by the agency that should have been pursued ln the intial specificatiofts, lt has resulted ln flooding in
the building. lf this was repofted to Congress, thy would not have been abte to buitd this buildfn6

RA 47
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 59 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
59 Filed: 08/08/2014
JN-3-14 9|L9 FR0t'1:ELENE lN50N 5479'68,43 i.sstt= P.414

wthout specal pfovilons to eosure a sound wort< environrnent. ThlS incfeased unnecesary debt across
the board which can be estimated to be in the mitlons of dol[ars'

tlS r,ogon to dlsml5s ls wlthout facts. Tfie records concernlng my employment cn found t oPM.
am requestngthat both agencies be served. Durin3 my tnure at 654, I saved the government $3.5
mlllion dollars. In rddltion, there are also accommodation letters on ffle from span*te govemmenl
agencies (DOD, Natlonal 5cence Foundaton) Ehat were submltted to the regonal offlce to include TonY,
Commissoner at GSA, Refer tq the following attachments cncernlng College Park, MD includlng GAO. a
lener to Senator Wamer from HHS statln6 th+t I was not ln agreement of th design factors of Cof lege
Park dated 2002, Hl{S's fesponse tO SenatorJohn Wrner lS also included.

Very Respectfully,

Eugene D, Johnson

RA 48
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 60 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
60 Filed: 08/08/2014

TO: Merit System Protection Board

FROM: Eugene D. Johnson

to2
Subject: Harassment endured from both FDA and GSA

pfease refer to Docket #: DC-3443-L4415G1-1, letter addressed to SenatorJohn Warner including HHSs
response, doctot's letters.

I have receivedthe HHS response in regards to my case. ln this agency statement dated July 3,2W2,
HHS stated that "l was originally employed at GSA" was transferred to the Department of Health and
Human Services and FDA when the building operatons were delegated." That statement is not trge. In

1986, I began employment with the Health and Human Services; my performance rating at thattte
=a
was a WL-13.

Between 1989-1990, I appl'ed for a position at FDA as a technical


FY

employment as a G912. I worked closely with scientists at the FDA'


knowledge, I had an outstandingwork performance, it exceeded sati r
to GSA is found not to be in accordance with OPM Regulations. What raised the objections in the
agenq/s decision to transfer me can be noted in the above referenced document. 9 CFSAN scientists
reviewed the floor plan for the College park facility. They indicated that the building would not be large
enough to accommodate allthe needs and operationalfunctions of the government agencies. They also
found that the site where the building was being constructed was in the wet lands. We spoke with the
Speaker of the House concerning this matter. The speaker of the House met with the CFSAN scientists
and assigned his legal staff to report the shortcomings of not being able to fillthe designed space. As a
result, they had to rent space from the Univercity of Maryland to accommodate the mass spec
laboratory. This was necessary because of the location of the building design; many changes would
have to be made in order to make the facility operational. Due to my observation, and whistle blowing
activity, it led to the involuntarily transfer to GSA. This is also stated in the above document. "Mr.
Johnson raised concerns regarding the open design of the College park building."

RA 49
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 61 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
61 Filed: 08/08/2014

Before I was transferred, I apptied for GS12 at the Food and Drug Administration and was accepted into
the position which I remained until October 2@1. The Merit Protection Board reviewed my
employment at the FDA. ln 2OOO I was awarded a promotion to G913 by Judge Clancy. I was paid as a
GS-13 for my services at HHS until my transfer. I began employment at GSA from 2001 to July
2009. I

applied for several postons in GSA for G$13, each time I was denied even though my performance
standards exceeded expectation. ln one instance, in2ooT l applied for a position at college Park as
a GS-
part of the
13, FDA sent a representatlve and the evaluation of the position I applied. FDA was a
was
selection committee; I was denied the opportunity to serve at College Park. The candidate that
on
selected was later involved in bribery and removed from the positon at College Park. t was harassed
the job continuously from the beginning to the end of my employment at GSA due to my whistleblowing
I will
efforts to reduce federal costs. My doctors sent tetters to the Regional Managers of GS which
Park and
attach to this document. The retaliation for my whistle blowing activty in regards to College
job- This caused
overcharged contracts during my tenure at GSA led to pain and suffering on and off the
health issues some of which are irreversible and have contributed to my being disabled since leaving
GSA July 2009. I was hospitalized for approximately 3 weeks. My health really
deteriorated and raised
life-threatening concerns; it is well documented at GSA'

the Merit
Additionally, as a result of my reporting overpricing GSA eontraets tethe lG and FBI'
protection Board reopened my case. The Merit Protection Board is invofued with both my FDA and GSA
cases. They only requested my military records, which were not readily available
but I submitted them in
findings to GSA
zo13 after my retirement. I am requestng that the Merit Protection Board submt their
Park acquisition'
for a resolution to the case file at GsA. lt is known that GSA was involved in the college

that the case with FDA and GSA be further reviewed. tn addition, I am requested
that
I am requesting
HHS review their records and determine that I was an FDA employee
since 1990 and have worked
me promoton
satisfactorily. Both GSA and HHS were involved in the candidate selection which denied
of college Park
to a GS-13 position at GSA. My career was damaged by the FDA and this acquisition
concluded that
facility. The Merit protection board reviewed this case at GSA after my retirement and
and John Allen, were
there were wrongdoings done by GSA. The deputy director at GSA Sharon Banks,
involved in the job selection process, both of which dened me the opportunty
to advance during my
norm and records
term of employment. My performance was reported as a level 4, which is above the
Merit Protection
that have been sent. During my tenure at GSA, it was my belief and my appealto the
I have suffered at GSA'
Board that I concluded that both agencies were involved in the reprisals that

been a continuous problem


The college park designed facility was flawed due to the location. This has
by the agency that should have been pursued in the initial specifications.
lt has resulted in flooding in
building
the building.lf this was reported to congress, they would not have been able to build this

RA 50
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 62 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
62 Filed: 08/08/2014

wthout specal provisions to ensure a sound work envronment. This increased unnecessary debt across
the board which can be estmated to be in the millions of dollars-

HHS motion to dismiss is without facts. The records concerning my employment can found at OPM' I
am requesting that both agencies be served. During my tenure at GSA, I saved the government $3'5
million dollars, ln addition, there are also accommodation letters on file from separate government
agencies (DoD, Nationat science Foundation) that were submitted to the regional office
to include Tony,
GAO, a
Commissioner at GSA. Refer to the following attachments concerning College ParK MD including
letter to Senator warner from HHS stating that I was not in agreement of the design factors of
College

Park dated 20O2, HHS's response to SenatorJohn Wamer s also included'

Very RespectfullY,

Eugene D. Johnson

RA sT
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 63 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
63 Filed: 08/08/2014

Discriminatinq Offcials

a Marc Rappaport Deputy Director Metropolitan


a Michael Castle (Operation Manager) GS-4
o Michael Downey) GS-14 VA Metro Service Center Branch Manager
a Gamer Duvall Deputy. Director Retired 2AO4
o Mnce Deportanova Arlington Metro Service Cei-ter GS-13 Bu-ldji
Manager Supervisor (Retired April 2006)
a John Allen Director of metropolitan Servi Center
o Paul Hickey; assigned to manage as supervisor Arlington Metro Service
Center September 2005

B
Service Center to include FY 2001 - n
# =r -ls f)

Management has continued to treat me differently than other associates at p: ;


Metropolitan Service. Because of race and ag
satisfactory work performanee. Please amend
200012001 through 2007 discriminatory me
GSA by FDAlJob harassmentby GSA ofEci

I have been delegated to major projectsand have performed research to developed


cost saving to the govemment only to be removed from projects and job reassigned
to someone else. Please refer August 30,2007 Mr. Hickey and Mr. Rappaport and
othrs meeting with the NSF that generated my being removed from projects. I met
nith Mr. Peter Arend Deputy Directo and advised him that I taken offthis project
twice before, Later submitted details on progress report. Mr. Arend overhrrned the
previous decision to remove me from project and allowed me opportunityto continue.
Although I am allowed to continue this project all others responsibilities falls under
the directions Mr. Marc Rappanport and Michael Castle whee belittling and down
planning accomplisbments ae to continue in this case. I requested an explanation
from my supervisor Michael Downey 2005 as to why I was denied performance paid
annual increase? Mr. Downey stated he wasn't my supervisor during 2005. This
action exhibited causes under questions what motive they have if not discriminatory
measurers. Please review BOB A/C contract installaton t 875 Randolph Steet One
Liberty where I was removed from project left incomplete for more than a year after
we had in-dept study to secure the contract. I have been harmed by these above
officials. It would appear that this center is being evaluated based on the IFMA
survey under the direction of Mr: Michael Castle. Under my leadership this customer
service center performs above and beyond other service centers beneath Metropolitan
Division. This center provides services under DOD, Fiomeland Security and National
Science Forndation. You may wish to contact any of our clients for references.

RA
2
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 64 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
64 Filed: 08/08/2014

Additionalln I am a victim of civil dghts violations and unfafu labor practices. As


such, I have frled complaints with GSA's EEO Office and the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB). In September 2005 and 2006,Paul Hickey was
brought into manage the Arlington Metro Service Center as a GS-13. I was not
aware of an announcement for the position and was surprised to find that I was
not considered a potential candida for the position since I possessed the most
background knowledge of the operations. Mr. Hickey worked for2-3 months on
a regular basis, and then his attendance became very sporadic with long absences
and when he did come in, it would be for only a couple of hours. During the
entire tim.e that lvfr. Hickey was employed in this center. I ran the center and
handled all of the requests coming into the center. During the early part of
January 2007,Mr. Hickey began a more regular attendance and said he would be
running the center. I spoke to Michael Downey and Michel Castle and voice my
objecton since I had been running the center over two yeafs without any
promotion o sange inpay compensation.

Also, the facts are I have been working with the NSF projects lighting and HVAC
deficiencies since 2004. GSA since 2003120C4 I was emoved from the project
svral times by Mr. Drtonovia andMr. Michaet Castle, Mr. Michael Downey
and Mr. Paul Hickey. This is a clea violation of my civil rights. Just recently
drning the month of January 2007 , a new associate was assigned to take over a
projet $20t Willon Blvd, Arlingfon, VA, NS for which I had completed all
ihe preliminary work. Furthermore, I was in the negotiating stages of settling a
dispute that would reconcile the lost of a milliol of federal dollars' After raised
objictions Mr. Peter Arend reassigned me back to the lighting Projectr Listed
beiow are other agencies and locations rfiere my efforts have rezulted in
overwhelming savings to the govemment. . Listedbelowae other agencies and
locations where my efforts have resulted in overwhelming 5vings to the
government This is only apartial listihg.
'White
House Garage: Transportation Agency established working crrstomor
relationship with clients.

o Evaluations of customers' needs and reduced contract cost deductionsby 20%o.

. Performed overall agency assessments of concerns and recommended


alternative measures to reach agency needs to upgrade the ca wash facilify
through contract procedures and other lease concems.

o Our clients were very happy with my initiative during the short period that I was
assigned to their facillrty. However, I was removed from this project by Director
JohnP Allen.

RA It
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 65 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
65 Filed: 08/08/2014

16050 Gaither Disfribution Center: DNA Pathology Reseach Laboratory

. Since September 2005 to the nesent time, I initiated a 180 degree trrnaround in
meeting customer service relationships to meet agecy needs.

r This was accomplished through working very close with clients and listening to
fheir concerns regarding Operation and Preventative Maintenance services that
were lacking and deficient.

o Action taken by preparing necessary documents to terminate unsatisfactor,


performance contractor and providing immediate new directions using Federal
Supply Advantage Contactors, thus reducing cost 50 percent of suggesd
pricing by the previous manager. (Savings more than $25,000.00).

o Provided Saving Energy Cost Reviews: Provided field surveys ofthe IIVAC to
include lighting proposed reto t desigued to reduce cost.

o Submitted Energy Management Specifications Plans to contracts for approval to


address the 70o/o over budget energy consumption at the caption property.

. Secured finding from DNA PathologyDivision in order to secrue the above


Energy Management Plan and to include 2007 fiscal fimding (Received from
the agency $ 1 I 0,000.00).

o Reviewed ageney budget oversight and reconciled Day Time Matron Services
and Preventative Maintenance coutacts to credit 8A61 account the above
mones stoted.

r Wotkedwiththe chief of contracts andstaffto achieve andvalidate


Preventative Maintenanc e for 2 month contract for fiscal year 2007 and now in
place.

Prepared a three-year contract on initiating frill service preventative


maintenance services at the caption property (DNA).

4040 Webb Building RESI Management

o Lessor agenl. advised us April 20A5 thrtheir lease had been replaced with a
new lease to remove cycle paintings and carpeting in government dismissed
space. The govenrment shall replace carpet and paint upon demand. This lease
expired and a new lease was issued to remove all the cycle maintenance as a
standard procedure. This is an ongoing reconciliationof 2.4 million dollars.

RA 5
J
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 66 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
66 Filed: 08/08/2014

o Building public arers rmder renovation from first floor through tenth floors;
corridors, men and uromen's resfiooms to include the completion of elevators
#l&#2; #3 elevator 0% complete, elevators # 3 e, #4 prqected to be
completed $rithin I weeks.

o Interviewed DOD Chief of StaffJ. Michael L;mch. He advised that they were
happy with the lessor maintenance staff.

r Maintenance services and constnrction reinovation work underthe direction of


RESI Management Corporation QA3-52+7500) Charles DeRose, Jr.

4201 IVilson Blvd. NSF Stafford Place I: National Science Formdation

e Reviewed Agency Electrical Power Usage: Profile on KWH consumption on


peak, offpea and mid peak hours with GSA Energy Coordinator. Performed
profile analysis and recommended ra schedule that was accepted and
imFlemented in the selection offer.

. Provided written documents to retrofit the outdatedTl2 tighting fxtures at the


caption propefy. This proposal has beenp on hold pending firthe review to
reduce 25To of agency cost annually.

e Received recognition from the NSF buildings manager for my efforts in


achieving good customer senice.

o Reconciled contracts for two years of past matron's senice accounts with the
lessor and the agency through contract ratification to bring the accormt to
current status.

RA qs
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 67 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
67 Filed: 08/08/2014

901N. Stua Ballston Serrice Center

o Reconciled overcharges to the Government for parking cost reduction of


70Vo origlnal cost$154.00 after reconciliation reduced to $290.00 per
month.

o Ratified and reconciled Preventative Maintenance contrct paid to Tolin


htrechanical Inc. after many years of sole soruce verbal agrements.

o Provided new scope of work and specifications for a new contract to continue
services for fiscal 2007.

o Negotiated with the lessor and the agency to provided finds to continue
cleaning services rnder a new service agleement working v/ith DOD and WHS.

r Established new contract procedures working with WHS to provide services and
goods on agency request and changing new directions at the Arlington Metro
Service Center

875 N. Randolph St Q_I-l_be-rty Cenler

o Reconciled tsro years of the lessor's past due invoices(which amounted to


ttrousands of dollars) to sr44nrt services rnder the lease agreement submitted
for paynent for electrical sub-meters, overtime IryAC, and daime cleaning.
Many meetings were held with the lessor and contracts to resolve these
paymentissues. We aohievedl00% of all ofthe issues reportedtous. Savings
in the thousands of dollars were achieved.

49L St. SE V/arehouse

r Estblished good customer service relationship andprovided services to remedy


may of the deficiencies reported and submitted statement of work to provide
conact services.

r Since Itook over this building I accomplished the execrion of the office carpet
office painting, security phone installation, overhead doors repairs, and TIVAC
repairs.

o Held meetings with the existing NISH contactor and put the contactor on
notice for unsatisfactory performance.

o Resolved the contract deficiencies and demanded satisfactory performance by


putting ne\'\ a contract in place that shall enforce contract complianee.

RA 5O
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 68 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
68 Filed: 08/08/2014

Meetings with \ilHS to establish standaril protocol in deatingwith customer


service procedures and obtaining their support in achieving productivity, to
include request for RFP to include funding of frrture and cirrrert projects.

During fiscal years 200512006D007, I tried to submitto GSA Metopolitan


Service Center a documented plan to reduce federal cost. My efforts failed due to
the objections of former Director John P Allen, Shaon Banl<s, and Michael
Castle. I was allowed to make a presentation on January 17,2A07 to the
Metropolitan Service Center associates. There u/as no feedback from management
on this meeting.

Fiscal years 2005n006, Gaither Distibution Centet 16050 Indushial Pak Drive,
Gaithersburg, MD. The services for this DNA Lab Center have not been
maintained for maty years. DNA Division, Mr. Herbert Sims and WHS
management assisted. us in achieving satisfactory customer services. DOD
Washington Headquarters Services are continuing to work with us on
accormtabil issues at these facilities.

For customer services appropriations, FY 2005 and 2006 firnding were not
processedto spport the physical operation ofthe building. I coesponded with
the DOD, WHS, and the DNA agency administrators to secure finds of $110,000.

Since my illegal tansfer from FDA to GSA in October 200l,the record will
support thatthere is uritten correspondence to.the lnspector General to the
previous Attourey General. Ashcroft's Office has reviewed the situation and
referred the complaints I submiued the GSA's IG Dept., as well as the Dept. of
Civil Rights that have fallen on death eas. I forwarded these allegations to U. S
Congress on January 6,2004. It see.ns that no one is willing to take a stand and
that each deparhent or division keeps handing the ball offto the next division.

The elients at the above agencies can confim the above performances.

The EEO conducted an informal mediation meeting on June 7,2007 in an attempt


to resolve the past Civil Rigbt Violations. Mi. Michael Downey, my immediate
supervisor, advised the committee that upper GSA management has a problem in
workiirg with me ( Eugene Johnson). Also, he admitted he has tried to reoncile
the differences with his superiors and to it has caused difficulties for him. Ms.
Babara Stewat would have the names of all the attendees. Mediationmembers
outside of GSA management proposed reconciliation of the case. However, the
attomey fs nanagement, after consulting with Mefopolitan Service Center
management, rejected the fair and reasonable settlement proposed

RA 6z
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 69 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
69 Filed: 08/08/2014

During April 2007,I applied again for the caeer appointuent GS13 position that
was advertised for a GSA Supervisor at the College Park facility. I was given an
interview by Carl Vottler, GSA Branch Manager, who assembled the selection
panel v/ith GSA associates and FDA manager, Ray. Banks. I was advised by Mr.
Vottler that Mr. Marc Rappaport made the selection for the vacant position I was
again denied promotion to a supervisory position I believe the discrimination
dates back my reporting wrongdoings at the FDA.

The injustice continues here at my work place. It is rmbelievable that the only
alternative would be for me to bring these issues to Congressional Oversight for
wasteful qpending. Upper management at GSA has prevented any t.pe of
reasonable settlement in this new care.

Fiscal years 2006/2007 Accomplishrnents of tasks


above my grade level without compensation. See list
below

FY06 Funds collected approximately $100,000.00


7 Construction Confracts
10 Direct Payments
31 Service Contracts

FY07 Funds collecte d 52,250,000.00


35 Construction Contracts
40 Service Contracts
l{Dtrect Payments

RA
t8
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 70 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
70 Filed: 08/08/2014

See letter Dated July 31,2006 of My Job Performance


10651 Industrial Drive, Suite 100 Gaithersburg MD
from Deparfment of Defense Director David Boyer
Prior years; this facility was managed by Vince
Deportanova, Charles Sonon and Michael Castle.
I have identified millions of dollas of government oversight tbat has been
reconciled at 10651 hdusEial Park Drive and 13 Taft Cout, Roclville, MD.
Agencies have been put on notice and now have make promises to us to begin to
make payments for fiscal yeaqs 2007n008, for rtilities previously paid by GSA
for approximately 12 years.

Pursuant to reason for GSA denial me for carecr promotions to GS-13 Although, I
was the most qualified applicants. But not considered on mrny vacancy [Example
GS-13 1176r. The position was to ivork at Willey building at College Park MD.
With FDA. I was told by Mr. Downey that could not get career promotion at the
genter beause of Paul Hickey assigp4enL

I have worked itt -ypresent GS-12 position for 15 yean antl have been
recoqrized to be a higb achiever in performance and job leadership and
respnsibility. See the may GS-13 and 14 positions ap,plied for onlyto be
denied.

See President Initiative Plan I Submitted to Reduce


Federal Cost 2004
Plan was rejected without an interview

RA st
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 71 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
71 Filed: 08/08/2014

I have for many years now, sorted relief from EEO, IG and FBI for a resolution to
this matten Please refer to Case #.03-NCF.-WP-EDI-21

see my emolovment background of historv of discrimination by GSA

Discrimination Basis
r Race
. Age DOB Oct.z, 1931
Nature of Action
. lnvoluntary transfer
o Telephone harassing
o Denial of career advancement going back to 2001 to presentzooT

lnvoluntary Trarisfer
. From FDA to GSA (October 2001)
o From work assignment as facilities specialist at 200"c" st. swto
Arlington Metro Customer Service center (Sept. 2002) GSA Building Manager

Telephone Harassment
. By GSA employees (last incident 8123102)
r Other dates reported to Federal Protec'tion Service
. See outline of deliberate civil rights violations past and present as of
March 2OO7

Race
r African American
. Age (76 years- DOB Oct.2,1931)

Contention

Dec.1:
o I informed the Contracting Officer about a tremendous overpayment made
to "a particular contracto at FOB I
. I discussed the same with Garner Duvall
Result:

lwas harassed after being transfened to GSA

RA 60
9
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 72 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
72 Filed: 08/08/2014

FOB I was being closed down


He was the oldest employee at site (1white, 5 African American)
He and 2 F;nn Ameriqan were transferred
I White and 2 African Americans were not
prior to Transfer to GSA Arlington Metro service center
o I received anonymous telephone call
Tvoe of Calls
o Threatening
o Galled names fdumb son of a bitch)
o wamed he should not be alone in basement of FoBS building

Callers
o White
o I provided names of suspected callers.to Federal Protection Service
'old
o Do not recall any racial epithets used by caller but was refened to as
man"

Aciln
o Peter Arend - told him of transfer and told him. I advised him of the
federat wasteful spending at FOB8. Also of the anonymous caller left
messae on answering machine (that he would be replaced by a white male)
o I informed Arend of above
Later I advised the Federal protection Service the suspected caller

Manaqement Position
o Garner Duvall (white male - 59 years old) - Second line supervisor
#1 that I ofren raised-issues of waste, fraud and abuse - but unfounded

Reason for transfer


r Because FOB I was being phased out and he was needed more in
Arlington
o Denied decision to transfer was based on waste,.etc. or above by
contractor
. That he never made a clear case about contractor
. Hard to understand allegations (it was like he was blowing whistle on his
own failure to monitor his contracto/s activities - since he was responsible
for overseeing his contractor

*o
1b
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 73 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
73 Filed: 08/08/2014

Telephone Galls
I was put him on Adminstrative Leave by Duvall "so he would not continue
to be harassed

Reasons:
He was transferred to a lotion that was closer to his residence
. Once transfened telephone harassment ended

Action taken
o Told FPS to investigate matter

Peter Arend
. Whte male, 53 years old
. 1"t line supervisor until transfer to Artington
. Arend told Duvalf that he was transferred because he was needed in
nlrligtrr
o That FOB I was beingphased out
o That only 3 employees (Black) remained in FOB g
o That on August 25,2002, that he send him email requesting transfer
because of telephone calls
o That he never told him who he suspected of making calls
. Never told calls made reference to his age
Complainant Wtness

1. Thomas M. colburt - African American age b7 Go-worker


Worked with him 1 T"years
Did not think race or age was factoi in transfer
Telephone calls - Heard 1-2 messages on his voice mail, they were hostip
and vulgar
He heard one call ulive"
Waste - no information on waste by contracto

2- lra Johnson - African American age sg special Agent Fps


Gjyen assignment to investigate threatening telephone calls made to his
office.
He heard tapes of calls - calls were "crude and nasty" (no reference to race
or age).

RA 6z
11
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 74 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
74 Filed: 08/08/2014

3' Michelle Coleman -African American Female age 33 Contracting Officer


That he constantly sent emails whire at FoB g abouicontractors
That only one oomplaint had any validity about damaged building materials
That all complaints were about "minor matters that did not atrect lhe
performance of the contractor"
That she did not discuss those emails with Arend and Duvall
(no knowledge of telephone calls and transfer)

4. Alphonso Pongilinan - Filipino American age 30 - chief Engineer,


Dyncorp
was told by his_supervisor to not give any information about Dyncorp
activities at FOBI
This struck him as odd since Johnson was overseeing the activities of
Dyncorp at FOB I
Thought those instructionq were based upon Johnsonls race since the
Dyncorp managers who gave him the instructions were'ail white"

Key Gause - Said that he become aware that Dyncorp was overcharging
GSA on Dyhcorp's contract and knew that he was reporting those
overcharges to GSA (reported to Karen Satterwhite - lG of GSA that he
believed that he was transfened to prevent him from continuing to report
those overcharges.

Relevant Docu.mentary Evidence


Title 5 U.S. Code Sec.2302 .
Personnel produre resulting from iJisclosure of information
(Re: where employee "reasonably believes evidence of gross waste of funds
- prohibited practice include detail, transfer or reassignmenfl
Offense/lncident Report FPS

Call maker suspected caller was upper line supervisor at GSA was reported
to the Federal Protective Services.
Since transferred from FOBB to Arlington Metro Service Center.
Denied making harassing calls
That he made "vague references to unsatisfactory work by a contractor but
was told by Michelle Coleman that it was not relevant?

RA 1A3
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 75 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
75 Filed: 08/08/2014

Other Ky lnformation:
Aug. 23, 2002 - Date of last telephone harassment

Claim accepted to process by EEO:


1- Discrimination because of race and age when involuntarily transfened on
9113102 from Washington to Arlington
2 n1F _a1d Age when received harassing telephone call- last occurring
4u9.23,2002
Dismissed
I fllaltempts in the past to reconcile complaints of the above statements of
Civil Rights and Discrimination Claims of reprisals

RA q1
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 76 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
76 Filed: 08/08/2014
+
-ei'a
3?*LBTi-ET TF.ITE & EUi}A- S=R]CES fu iie=ii -=+-.ice

ad rug ACrcinisiadon
Food-.
Roclciile tuiD 2S8t

--JijL 3 trjtz
The Honorable John W. Warner
United States Senator
4900 World Trade Center
101 WestMain Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1 690

Dear Senator V/arnec

Thankyou for the letter lnlay o your constitueng Mr. Jobnson,


regarding a Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Age'ncy) facilty aod the status of his
employment

Prior to occryrng its new building in College Padq Maryland, FDA's Ce,nter for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (CFSA occupied Federal Building 8 in Washington, D.C. FDA
operad the facilityunder a delegation from the General Serviees Administation (GSA) ftom
1985 rntil 2001, wheir CFSAN began ib relocation from Federl Building 8.

GSA's policy for the lrmsfer of building qration authority incfuded transferring back to fte
Agencyap criHforbuildingopeiations, Thistrsfer
intue as needed to aaintain the building. Such was
. the condition of Mr. Johnson's e,mploroent wi EDA- He was originally employed by GS.at
wri transfered to the Departuent of Health and Human Services md FDA whe,n thebuilding's
operations were delegad, and then tansferred back whe,n tbe Agency released its delegation to
GSA and took occupancy of the College Park building;

Mr- Jobnson also raised concerrui regaating the open des of the College Park laboratory
facility- The design of the laboratory was created by one of the fotemost laboratory phnning
fias in the country, GPR, in conjunction nrith the architecal firm ofKallmarq MgKinnell and
Wood Architects. The design was a'resft of a collaborative effort with a task force of senior
CFSAII scientifi.cpersonnel andmanagers. The ope,n designrfuas selected as thepreferred
configuration fter visiting other state-of-the-art facilities used by industry, governme,nt md
academia As a laboratorythat conforms to the guidees forbioSafetylevel-2 facilities as
',.
established by - National Institutes of Health and the Cenrs for Disease Cpntrol aad ...
Peve,lrtion, cross contamination ofbiological andchemical agents willnotoccurwhe'nusing

RA 65
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 77 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
77 Filed: 08/08/2014

Page 2 - The Honorable John IV. Wnrer

There was some detay afrer occupancy with the use of some of the scientific eipment
because of specific requiremen for the electrical outlet configuration- In many cases this
occurred because the equipment was purchased after the final design was completed or whe,n
a program and its was relocatd from one location to another area in the laboratory
dnring te construction gfthe falty. Part of the objective in good laboratory design,
houiever, is to have flxibility to acconmodate various chmgwiout
requiring major renovafioni- The College Padc laboratory is a model for tis level of
flexibility as the necessary changes have been accomplished as part of the move-in process.

Thankyou again for contactingrs aboutftis mter. Ifyeuhave firrtherquestions, please let
us know.

IC Hrbbard
Senior Assosiate Commissiooer
for Policy- Planning, and Legislation

RA 66
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 78 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
78 Filed: 08/08/2014

ltrlllltHmyptEt (r{0) 71r


wrwnt
gsrywn
r (ta0) 7lse6t
tfitrc
t4&2
s wrur.nppmtffidciamom

lan*y l{, m

Tq*d
nrgionlAEirhf(lle)
Naitml Cryildlrdm
U.S. Ocorl lt!ftc
Effi& D Sq g ^affinfuld
Amm ?04
Ivqfi, Dcffi7f!

RE Eof,lm.Iolnoa
DO& 10&/1931

Dcr Mr.Rrrd:
Mr. .fnro br b r i sf qur Pntic r c past rcv+*l 'c- Ile b a elu gutlcmn utro lns
bcilrrydilgilbbtIgrpgtif4yrydhetit*Grrdbldprca lLetohl
frll0mp ryoe t+nhrln td @d$ r4 any ch*c b fis srmlt hh. {s e rcalt, his
isanc pccg h*v+ bc* trdc god soEoL Un*ne', oyer lt pat ur aod+ o h* oafuncud
a wrll dfu trt btffi, E n# rrpi flffims in Fa Uaod ct, ud blood rwu. Alr
dingerttg rcriilii eodbb crsc, ftcldt tfu Ed tiEE carofm inuq ruci, drcp p#r1 .Dd
dotffi tbftrhb EdcirEo" itru d ody{r cfitp hb ms wr rlflld to !rrr, }IG fr.d ofo
ndicdrtortttgcnvism;stdnurlcfhrntufyefbacdttEmoobrtbobidimccproo+ce lIe
uosdfutbt{oone!nrC*.mH bedsmcda$ulc, honcculiyugtoEyofcc, ftwa oorIrd"
rs blodq iw4 ud cdtc actcmcd ss pntrirude gn hr tilyr, Ptulr l
orfta r r of tmrm'hg ofdf,tt*ie m+ oftn rcfid p isi* i Ud sn{g. Mr. Iohs hr mv
Gi tE l rl amy mr b tws ffi t ppod b his Hl &Ee t ih ttrodrl' c o ra hdiltcy io
hL blood ?lrsq rl bod T. lh FfftF D nr ot r rrgub bah hb rrlrr4t rlf rzi n rr d
c ryrqrb Ediei {dg. I t sdvbctt hla dlinirr ay tw r hb tift. tVc *mrd nrny
s+tmmodsnodrlftiarhcltdia: ecnasirConnuaioncbrhue+radtirrcidhgc
ru* cnrfrsm.r dm hb mll' ru *m b M to ufrt- Il= h dy a*rn duf fi!
dcu*illgtldt rittrg*
Iftffidd. inhis
dldrll.

teft il- r l*or Ool 14.D, r Xfla H. ry, 1.D, . ffi O, ltcrC, lLD, r
n ,
Eoy! B. l{glfl+ D.O, . Jlffi " Jn, ,O. r Dr g t4rddgortr wt D, ' J. Thsnr Rtrt, }1,O.
ltph P, Srlni;Bq 1.D. r lfrT, tbnDfftd, l4D. rlncy L. tYtE[ ll.D,
9nn rtt4 lLg,l{, FllF{ r L P|,#ilcr, fll$l, fllP{. Clrd odar. H.!iH,. fiFC 'Lr"---+.
Ra{hd llugEha f4.5.fl,, cf,lF. lFjtl sltHr, l,lsJ{., c-FlP

RA 6z
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 79 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
79 Filed: 08/08/2014

RpptnNuoq( FAHILY PHYs[cxANS (s40) 710-e100


5po@uana Office Fax (540) 7LG9O65
L0482 Georgetown Drtve
Spolvania, Virginia 22553 www. rappfam ilyphysicians.com

If you have anSr questions, please feel free to call me at 54710-9800

DanaB Brow4 MD

DBB/amh:D5232919

Dana B. Brown, M.D. . Wilson @o M.D. . Julie M. Hoyd, M.D. Rafael O. Herrandez, M.D.
Sonya D. Holland, D.O. . Thomas A. Janus, D.O. . Daniel G. Muldoon, M.D. . J. Thomas Ryan, M.D.
Joseph P. Sdruette, M.D. . Maria T. VanDerMeid, M.D. NancY L. Wang, M.D,
Samantha Franz, M,S.N., FNP{. J. Piper Sdtlesser, M.S,N., FNP{. Carol Dodson, M.S.N., FNP{
Rael Huggins, M.S.N., C-mR g$eidiSimpson, M.S.N., C-FNP
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104 lulq$tqraqHvrtr
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 80 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
80 Filed: 08/08/2014
ruilfi!ItrAlmY!
ar{Go[t v fff,

M,AuwBruolc I' TPP


Rs$mal DcntYllirccm
G.rrt Siltics Adninicaton
301 ? SEcct, S.qI.
hoom 7022
llashiag@, 'C- 204o7

ttcarts. Book:

mffi"

1S.

Sindy,

Aocigc ftr
Finrosid trd Bsiffits OPcratis

RA 69
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104 tElhilurI.DI?.E
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 81 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
81 Filed: 08/08/2014
0rffifltrtmTE
rl8rcvl teEfifF

tr tm

Sinccreln

sociac ftr
Fimcbt ard Bffffi Ocrstm

RA 70
DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
HU ONLY
MAN16RESCX.JRCES
Document:
Page: 82 A,:TiVIT'/
15 Filed:
Page:08/08/2014
82 Filed: 08/08/2014
I.IEADOUARTERS
T{XO FARFAX DRIVE. SUITE 2G
AHLTNGTOi. V A U.3- 1613

HAY r ?00s
Ms. Sbaon Banks
Dety Dicctor
Ceneral SerYi Administation
Mctopolt Service Cent
l9 14th Slrcet, NW
lvastringfr, D.C - 22fr4s

DeerMs. Sks:

I m writing b express my apprcciation for crrceptoral lroldr-pronrud by Mr. Eug


Jolnson and Ms. An Weltington for DHRA offic ithh tk Wbb Buildiug 44{ North
Fairfax Drvq rlington, Virgnia Mr. Johnson and Ms. lilelliuga are extemely efficient,
always look ftr tbe rnt econsrnicet option available, ad are csrsistn$ly le to corrplete
projects rnrititrfu most striuga timeliqes.

Their goximity to Webb Building, url of knowlcdge n most aU building systems aud
cosuwtion stmddq plusttreir flmmenal ability o balce multiple projecu sirndtreously
cornbine m glw DHRAth Uest ssncs arailabl.e. Many requirements are drallenging, lrrith
tight dffdlin sr rerrisious Bdd after the request for svices has bsn stbmired" Recentty,
lir. fo66sou adlVfs, lvetlilrgton cversn' thE ilrstallian of a dedcated ven air cmditiornr
lor anewlycsastrcted srvtr toom and tbry rrcre both instnmestsl in bringingproblematic
consrrctio in Sui t20ro a very satifactory clo.

Tneir orgf,izalional and negotidhg slcills, quick rffiForses, arrd genrrine dsi tn help
lwe@tre.mendous asts, My statrauI truty appeciatethair continud supporL

ExrtiveDir*or

RA zT
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 83 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
83 Filed: 08/08/2014
Page 1 of3
Good aftemoon Mr

incoming.verizon.net

From: EugeneJohnson[eugenedjohnson@verizon'net]
Sent: Sunday, January 25,2OOg 4:23PM
To: 'gregory.roue@gsa.gov'
Cc: EUGENE.JOHNSON@GSA.GOV
Subiect: Harassment at the work place
lmportance: Hh

Good aftrnoon lr. Rowe,


The reprisals ttrat I spoke to you by e-mail are ontinuing with GSA. I have rcquded t" Il
to refiner ris matrto e us ofnce of Special consel. Also, informed EEoc ratTlttlevrr
undef does no,t addr the complaint of reprisals srblect to whisille blowing would no_
r., ttre comptairts sent furuaid to addrs whise blowing. I sPoke wi e Duty ofice
at EEOC tlrey suggted that I contact IX)J.

Since this had oened re Regional Counsel fur GSA snrggid tet I contad l{r-
Kenner
ltaley, Assstnt Regional Counsel suggdtftat nctre EEO to speakwitlr anolher
EEo ofr for a rluUon of all the srming and pain that r had received from seveml
t;o. ntur, I advisd him tlrat I had spd<en witlr re Duty Orfficer at the EEOC
Ihis case involves fraud, mrption' dissimination. I asrcd to th
Drrt Officer rat ris Yvas in wrong courL
He gave ttre DOJ telePone to Pursue
thela HotreYet ris case do not totally involve te sufting in pain at I have received
from GSA upper managemenl I remain loyal to GSAand wish to rduce ttreFedeml costof
doing busines

Please ayise your rponse tolise-rnail'

Respectfttlly Yours'

Eugene D- Johnson

From: Eugerre Johnson [rnailb:eugenedjohnson@verizon'net]


SenU Sunday, APril20,2008 8:37 PM
To:'gregory,rorye@gsa.gov'
Subjec FW: Harassnrent at the work place

I wll try to make cntact with your office tomonow

From: Eugene Johnson [mailto:eugenedirhnson@verizon'net]


Senft Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
To'caulton.aln@comcast.nef
Cc:'barbara.56ryf@gsa.gov';'euneiohnson@99.9o/
Subjed: Harassment atre wort Phce

RA zz

8lt0/2010
9q.t$-j:J'F.,+
Case:r=.-.14-3104 ': -.
Case:
CASE14-3104
l.

cfddols
.
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 84 15 Filed:
lnsidration. He smtd thal hc
Page:
08/08/2014
84
hrow Filed: 08/08/2014
'l Aggrieved fronn work
thnt comes bfough him fiom NFC afld thc Judgc Advucat's Offiee- He statcd
tht he knows the AggrieveC tres ver,v hard.

Mr. Rppaporr stated that he does not believe the ..ggrieved's age \tras facloJ i1
hs non-sete{tior. I{e stad rhar he is aware of the fhct that ttre Aggrieved had
aplied for aoothr posirion. He stfcd he recalls a cotlvers$ion in 2006, rerein
tfre Aggricved clled upset because he had applied for a position and had not
made the referrl list.

l"tr. Rappaporr stateC at ..co-tlid@-.-t--,


nhistlcblower. but Coes not non'selcction.

Mr. Rappport stated rire requirunes for the position inchded rnnnaging a small
teaa ir irandtiug th* se,rvics of a building: takng qare of satl pojects: care of
ctstorner relations; some fedcral as well as lese administrtion; interaotion wth
clients and rhe abilty to work with rlre leaser; prepurafion of consacting
papenvork; malsing e,Ertan work is perfomred to e exptatons of the client
and to be able to hdle aspscts af leascd as well as buildngs that e ownerf by
the goveruruenr

Mr. Rappapot stoted wirh regard 1{) the qualifications of the slestees, Gry
Thompson,'.vho has been with GSA for more tlan a decade. has handled propcrty
matagmet at umerous facilides and has wodied q,it+ him {Rappaport). He
srare.lhe ie good wirh tbe curr.otner; aIfiffi;has ffiou the leasing
sidq is very dcmanding, ancl has acted iu the role of Supervisory Euilding
lvlanager at ti Wiley Buitding nd knows at Franklin Corrt.

$erling Wjlson, the other seleree, has not worked with him (Rappaport), but was
referrcd by the panel as lreving a lor of expeence io Fedem! building
nagemnt. rfr. Rappaport stted h{r. l*ilson came *om the Potomac Sorvice
Centr, exhibted thc same characteristics as Mr. Thompson, and scoreil vr,ry high
sn the ratings, Mr. Rapparort statcd he thcugbt the selection of Mr. I#ilson was
in the bcst iatsresr of the Y/iley Building.

Mt, Rappapoa stated he vas unalrr&re of any ciernstsccs involving the


Aggrieved's tarsfer fom F,4.. He statcd that he has only been in his cunerl
position eine 20'05 and s nor privy to ny cf tbe iafomation.

D9M/07 Csrl Voefllcr, Customer Service h{anager (202) 20&0410


Mefiopolitan Servee Deliver-v Tcam [PBS)
AEe 59

Page 5 of I

l4lrflur' Ir t"+ /f11

5n-r5 frifion l^tkqh

RA 73
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 85 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
85 Filed: 08/08/2014
Pplofl

rizenet
From: io*rg,rizoor.ret tenere{dnsm@verizon-ndl
SN* @, Octer, m 4:4O PM
To: @l-com'
Ccl @Pte-gpt'
qet Fllll:
[rnpance: Hih
Serm"ity: Conffiertial
Ttacklng: Rcdplqrt octrrcry
cssra-ped<bobrrcrnefl 'm' id: t8l26l209 a:fi Pfi
'mccarsenaUl

Fror= irrcomirp.vizonnet [nefito:a4endjdrnson@vizon,net]


Sen$ Morday, Ocber ?:6, ffi
4:25 7M
To:'Generra.Peck@bobmdtndl.mm
Ocr 'min@saute.gov'
slt
Imporn; Hgh
Silsilivttf: ffidentid
because
tt
sPending
rpfqtrams
to HHS-IG & FBI
Taxpays in this country has losf tilfions_fedsat of ddlars sirme lb reporting llese issues
f gg ina,e seen ttrb tnom lnsiCe during 27 yrs sf feder I service

you ard your team


Iam a Koan Vet who served g{.n untry and rsr a prorde citizen hope to meet with
E5OO Mahew Maury Canrt Spotsylvania VA 553

tH) -7-SO7

RA 74

ta30l20a9
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 86 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
86 Filed: 08/08/2014

Sesember 6,2005
Tho Honorable John lV. Waner
Unitd Stes Senator
4900 lVorld Trade Centsr
101 WestMain Street
Norfolh Virginia 23 5 t-l69o

Dear SendorWarner:

Ths correspondence is intendedto u@te and inform you of the status of the repord
government overspending concerning GSA and HHS and DOD. . I reqrest that I be
allowed to testify to cougress. I witl zubmit detail case dseunaats of fraudand abre
reglities. In partcul the re,portd cas conceruinpthe praperties 1ocd at College
Park, Whit Oak, and new findings at GSA in regards to the Dept ofDefense auditing
agencies and at 2}251Centrl Blvd- Germantown, MD. Draft Selective Service 1515
rtritsonBtv4 Atlioefo, VA., and 6lt Picketf St Alexmdri4 VA-DDAmr'r fzilr.-*fE-
9O1 N. Stuart St., Arlngton, VA. This also ictrudes The Natial Science Forndation at
4201 WilsonBlvd- Alington, VA and DODlHenryJackson Foundation research at 1600
Gude Dr. Rockville, MD and 13 Tafr St. Rockville, MD.

An indeh invcstig4ion sfay wCIrld resal lbat va-ste-ful W-ndjng ani


mismanagerne are ma proble,ms thretot G$AMetropolitan Service Ccrfer The
gormon denominatorin atl the properties is thattlre agency'smaagers complain tat
there is improper maintffim,e, i*proper usag of designed space, and improper charges
concerning face-liffs an,genenlmaintenanca In short, they arc fiayins for space that
does not 6se minimal safety standards and is in noompliance concerning energ]
effrceney polieies dting bck to the late 1980's and early 1990's. It has been discqered
tat GSA has failed to enforce nfra,compliance for leasd properti that has cost the
governnent hrndreds ofmillions of dollars. For example tky have failed to charge the
Nationl Science Forudatioa for energy cost for seveml ye- GSA hss acknowledgsd
this to be tn and I bal'e requested energy records for buildings mentioned and have been
rsfosd in mary cases.

I began a detailed inspection ofbuilding systems and pointed out deficiencies at the
National Soieffi Foundation facilify duringNovember of 2QO2.I fornd serious
deficiencies within 16 5ilting orperation equipflnet md made recomme,ndations for the
owner to make tlre necessary changes. I documetred the deficiencies through maily
'When
memorandrms. I fed to imptsssnt these chang I was met with much opposition
from GSA managemnL I seirt documents to fhe Inspector General. Afrerreportinglhese
failures tothe Inspetor General I was removed frommyposition atthis particrlar
fac1bty,4201 rJVilson Blvd Arlingn Va Even thoug they implemend my
recommeodations for the repain ofthe facility by corsulting an engineering finn in 2004
uhich in trn ponfed out most of l$e same deficie,nsis of the re'port that I submid in
2A02-2003. The engineering firm ras orderedthe Science Formdationhcause ofthe
lach of contrsl over the HVAC systerns and the negative pre$sw in the building. AIso I
poind out the mechanical and lighting deficieoies in the building and recommended

RA 75
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 87 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
87 Filed: 08/08/2014

+hat +e Issorake.the appropriate+angro in eccordance ts there lse agraent rrith


the Government I again was metwith oppositionby GsAmanagement These
deficiencies causd operation overagcs in the Governments brdgt forttrtftty-I

the changesh made-

In late August2fr)5 the Meilropolifaa Sf,vice Cetermaeachangeinmangenreftand


brought ina newmanagerto oversee the ArlingonMefiopolifrn CenterUpon his arrival
he begantoprnsue the same issrthdl hadattmptdto poitr orandhe hasbeen
ac@edwthout olrosition- GSA's rfisa1 to zupport myinitatve in this review is
coupled R'iih the Goverment nt charging the National Scienc Foundation an ercess of
$700,000.00 ayer for energSr consumed- It was my initial investigation and probing that
Ied to this discovery. Mr. PauI Hickey has now met \ith th NSF magemert d has
continued to proceed urith this project At this time I still have no input other then
explaining to Mr. Hickey what bas akeady been accomplished I advisd him I could get
no support so we could cometo completion ofthis project priorto his arrival

The above informationwas referenced ina letterJanuary 204 also this informtionhs
been forwarded to GSA IG to include the updated mismanagement of federal finds at
has cotinued to plague tte agencies.

RA 76
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 88 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
88 Filed: 08/08/2014

Itl0llZ00l - Involunrtary lransfer ftom FDA to GSA I was working atZW C Strest for
GSAmtf, Sqfbr af2AO2,
Prior to ?N2,I had reprted ovesigbt to HIIS and IG on an ovenight of O&M
@ntractors and also ihe acquisition of the Wildr Building. A group of FDA scientists,
uro work for CTSAII eitz}O C Unisn Members (NTE[ bad arranged a meeting with
rhe sp'eake, ofthe houseto discuss buildingths Scirlcs Building at College Park Sin I
wastheEngierulho workedwithihe Seienlists dCFSANd CeelarlDrugsDiYision-
e noq relocated a White Oak md Collrye Park {arytand- They spoke ofthe
"Ao
house; pgttogether a group of atrorneys to meet with us conclxing the mve to College
Park After that mting and months afterwards I received harassment pbone calls th
bave affeed my careeiover the last nine years and was working with tb confines of the

H"tTer urit Senator Joh Wner to DoId C- Willians, Origiual GSA


Administrator. (October 1, 15 2002)
See AttaohmentA for Abuse and [trarassment by contractors and fedeal employees.
Report was made to EEO and the tnsptor General's ofce .

Iuly ZO12-I received obscene and threaning phone calls. I reportd this to the Federal
prtective Service- Duval put me on Administrative Leave while it was investigatedby
F"S. Ira Johnson was the investigator -

1/0112ffi2,- I informed the contracting offrcer abo the tremeirdous overpyrnent to a


etiaincontractor at FOB8. He the,n discussed tbe matter wth e. Duval. No actio11as
taken.

lOtZglZ64- I zubrmitted aletlsr to the Merit Systern ProtectionBoard ad to the EDA


aad to GSA concerning the involuntary ansfer of my position to GSA

i *"rawardsd by the MSPB court a GS13 Building Manager position I immedidely


fited a stiatementto lvfSPB to notifr GSA andHHS thatGsAwouldnot acceptthe
transfer of positionas aGS13.
The corrt awarded me GS-13 for my prior service at the Food and Drug {dministration.
FDA paid me efftive thehteofthe awmd to the endofthe FY 2ffi0- GSArefused to
grant me thus position awded by the corrt therefore this was a firancial impact o me'
my fanily as .rell.

Afrer continuous complain to FDA. and GS,. concerningthe tansfer, Donald C-


Williams, Regional Aifninisfor, stated tht GSA was not apty to the litigation that I
purzued attheMSiPB.
it ** believed that GSA received my services and should have been able to rec'ognize
my performance over the lastq yeai, which two years my performmce was rafed above
tt"ut, However; upper managementbas always donied mc the opportrmity to oyrn,
grde t. lt would appr tUe director attime ruled with an iron fist leading back to
iistle blowing Gngrcss on the acquisition of tb \ililder Building in College Park.

RA zz
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 89 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
89 Filed: 08/08/2014
L

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE

EUGENE D. JOHNSON, DOCKET NUMBER


Appellant, DC-3443-14-0150-I-l

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: January 10,2014


HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.

FAILURE TO SERVE ORDER

The enclosed appellant's submission, Resnonse to ency Motion to


Dismiss dated January 5, 2014. was not sexved on the agency as required by the
Acknowledgment Order and 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.26(b)(2). In order ro facilitate
processing of the appeal, this submission is being served on the agency. Any
further submissions that are not served as required will be rejected.

FOR THE BOARD: fr''^Lf


Sarah P. Clement
Administrative Judge

RA z8
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 90 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
90 Filed: 08/08/2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE

EUGENE D, JOHNSON, DOCKET NUMBER


Appellant, DC-3443- t 4-0150-r- I

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: January 10,2014


HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.

FAILURE TO SERVE ORDER

The enclosed appellant's submission, Documentation of H arassment


Endured dated Janua 6 014 was not served on the agency as required by
the Acknowledgment Order and 5 C.F.R. $ 1201.26(b)(2). In order to facilitate
processing of the appeal, this submission is being served on the agency. Any
further submissions that are not served as required will be rejected.

FOR THE BOARD:


Sarah P. Clement
Administrative Judge

RA 79
t0014-3104
Case: [0i 0H xu/xr]
Case:
CASE 0L:L Document:
14-3104 t0//20
PARTICIPANTS ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 91 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
91 Filed: 08/08/2014

CERTI FICATION OF SERVICE


Case N u m be r :DC-3443-14-015-1-L

that on this day of February 24,2OL4,1 personally


I hereby certify
faxed and sent via Fed-Ex, documents of February 13,2OL4lo
James Simpson of HHS, Offce of General Counsel at 330
lndependence Avenue SW Washington DC,, and submitted
documents to the Honorable Judge Sarah Clement of the Mert
Systems Protecton Board 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 950 Arlington,
Vrginia 22202, phone number (7031756-6250 and fax number
(703) 756-7tL2. My home and fax number s (5a0)-786-55O7. 43
- -l
-.f,t --
nff R
ry i-r]
rx)=
vt
.J i-,t

-= =1
, l-J

F -l:i
r
Signature;

g^/
hnson

8500 Matthew Maury CT

Spotsylvania, VA 22553

L
RA go
+
L t'd TIL9SLUL ?DI ta9aLs NOSNHO ES:9T I--A:
=N=gn=:LtOdJ
Case:
t00E 14-3104 xu/xr]
[8sl- 0NCase:
CASE t: t L : Document:
14-3104
PARTICIPANTS ONLY
16 Document:
t0/8t/20 Page: 92 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
92 Filed: 08/08/2014

IINITED STATES OF IVIERTCA


MERT SYS]VIS PROTECION BOARD
}YA.SHTNGTON REGTONAL OFFICE

EUOENE D. JOHNSON, DOCKET NUMBER


Appellaot, DC-3443-14.01 50-I- I

v J
:
"-=
DEPARTMENT OF ITEALTH AND DATE: Febnrary 4,2074 -1
I{UMN SERVICS, f,.:t i
--1
Agency.
:
f -=
1-
r.- -4
a 1

f,.AILURE TO SERVB ORDTR

Th enclosed appella.nt's submission, datcd Janug,rv27.2Ol4, was not


scrvcd on thc agcncy as rcquircd by te Acknowlcdgme-nt Ordr and 5 C.F.R,
$ l20l .26(bX2). Thcrcfore, this submission is rojccted and rcfirncd to the
appellaat. It may be resubmitted upon complance wit the above requirements.
If the rejected document wa served ou thc Board eleotronically, it has been
deleted from tlre MSPB Repository aad will not be nrade e psrt of the ppcal
record in this matter.

FOR TH, BOARD:


Sarah P. Clcmcnt
Administtive Judge

RA 8t

l tI.'d lIL9SLTLT. zDT 1E9ALS N|SNHD.C :rJDdl rttT r-aI-a:


=N39nf
00 14-3104
Case: HU/X1]
[98e 0HCase:
CASE rr:Ll:
14-3104 t0z/81/20
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY
16 Document:
Page: 93 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
93 Filed: 08/08/2014

CERTIFICATE OF SRIrICE

I certify that the attached Document(s) was (wer{ sent os indicsted this
day to each of the following:

Apoellant

U.S. Mal ugene D. fobnson


E500 Matthew Maury Court
Spotsylvania, VA 22553

l\ ggny,, Eep,r,e, .S gtativc

Electronic Mail Jamcs E. Simpson


Dcpartment of Health and Human Services
330 Independence Ave., SV/., Room 4760
Washington, De 2O2Ql

Februay 4,2014
(Date) Sheila
Paralogal Speoialist

RA 8z
tr t' II.L9SL'LT 1DI tegaL9 t.tosNHt.C fN39n= :H0ul ..11 T.-f-a=
Case:
s00 14-3104
[8s 0HCase:
CASE
xu/x1] f:L!
14-3104 - Document:
PARTICIPANTS ONLY
16 Document:
t0/81/0 Page: 94 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
94 Filed: 08/08/2014

Auguat 2O,2oo2

U.S. Ofrlce of Speclal Counsel


1730 M Strcet NW Suto 300
Washngton. DG 200364505

Dear Slr/Madamo:

The undeecore below mentloned fall unde the Fale Cllmc Act (3'l U.S.C. 729 as
amended 19861. Aleo aee reportsd retallatory actlon taken egalnat me by the GSA & FDA
manegeru to avold the expoaure of fraudulenf actlvltla'

Orlglnally I begn my amployment wth Health & Human Sewlce* October 1986, I
was fater re.acclgned from HHS to FDA ln 1990. Octob 200t1 | wa tearlgned from FDA
lnvoluntarly and tranefer to GSA by FDA'o llfunegemont. See document attached my
appeal to Judge Annetrcng.

Due to recent clrcumatncee I am rogretfully requectlng a tranfer forrn from my


current poeltlon from GSA for the followlng reeaona:
1. I have recelved haraaelng phone calls and volce mossagoa threatonlng
my llfe. (Sae attachmonta)
2, My contlnued cot eavlng oflorte havo boon lgnorod to dato. Tho cost
eavlng lnltiative to reducs cot hgs reeulted ln tremendous oppoaltlon
by FDA'c Mr. Jlm l/lndaor Fscilltlos Branch Chlef and GSA'o
Contrctlng Ofrlcor Mna. Mlchelle Colaman. (Sea ottaohments)
3. I am ertcounterlng a hottlle worft snvlronment duo to my ftrfusalto "go
along wlth tho flow"

4. I contlnus to be haraaed on tho Job, theae lncldento aro documented


ar recent a 8123102 to GSA'c Federal Protectlva Servlce- (See
attachrnental.

5. Thls hostlle envlronment and tho unneceaasry stroeg are cautlng


health related lEu, for lnrtance;
A. Elevatod blood proturo
B, Tenslon headaches
C. Elevated blood augar levela
D, Sleeplng hablt
E. Stralnsd famlly rolttlont
My requeete to apeak wlth upper managemant concernng thg yrork-place
haraeement have been lgnored by Mr. John Allon and Mr. Garnar Duvall. My employment
at GSA la belng tlnted due to thoeo recsnt clrcumstancoc. lt le my bollef that my talente,
expefence, and prograrn l(rtowlodgg can be offoctlvsly aplled olsowhere. Your attontlon
to thla rguaat le apprcclate.
Slnce by arrlval at GSA my efforta to reduce coet have been met by much
oppostlon and condescenelon. lt ls a ylolatlon of Federal law (5USC2302(bl,to tako any
actlon agalnat an employoe who rovalt lnformatlon that the employee restontbly
bolieves shows evldence of an lllegal actlon, watte, fraud, abuse of auorlty, etc. Anyone
who tkos actlon agalnat cuch an employee la commlttlng a "prohlblted pereonnel
practlce" under Federal law.

RA 83

I .t' IIL9SLULI IAL 1E9BLS NllstrtH!.c 3ti=9nf :HDUJ t':T.1. l-EI-1.


E-tA-?1-4 11;33
Case: FROI'1:EUGENE
14-3104 Case:
CASE JOHNSON
14-3104 s47ea43
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY Page: 95 15TAr
16 Document: I737567tI2
Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014 P.44L
95 Filed: 08/08/2014
78 vu-

tatz elutFll E qq qrPBJ


too4s uarnE ua^v|z
uoruqof'q eue6ng

{ilnlsdcsu

paecordde og nlr rBtst ol uollcE ilelPedxo no


lueuyedoP oql of peu8reeer oq ol eu Jot ultgold
B eq tou plrtotlS ll psElFul aqr PUE SHH W cJoFeuu t{llil auoilPao^uor PBq a^,1

2i1812014 - 11:47 [TX/F}{ 10 7385] 004


Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 96 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
96 Filed: 08/08/2014

UNITED STATES OF A'MERICA


MERIT SYSTE${S PROTECTION BOARD
1ryASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE

EUGENE D. JOHNSO{, )
) DOEKET NUil{BER;
Appellant, ) DC-3443-14-01s0-I-1
v, )
) Administrative Judge Sarah P. Clement
DEPARTMENT OF HEATTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
) DATE: February 27,2014
Agency )
)

AGENEY NIOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANT,S UIiTIMELY FENRUARY 25.2014.

TEE ATTE&JATIVE. RENEWED MOTION TO DISMTSS F,'OR TMFROPER AGENCY


PARTY

Motion to trike Appollant's February- 25,2014 Untimely Filing

Adninistrati,"e Judge ("4J") Sarah element issued an Acknorvle<igment Order {"A,0") on

December 2,2a13, See h{SPB Docket ("Docket") No. DC-3443-14-0150-l-1, Tab 3. I her

AO, AJ Clement advised fhe parties that there was an initial issue ofjurisdietion by the h{erit

Systems Proteetion Board ("MSPB" or "Eoard"). Id., af2-3. In that regard, AJ Clernent advised

the Appeliant that he has "the burden of proving that the Board has jurisdiction over [his]

appeal." Id., al3. Moreover, AJ Clement ordered ihe Appellant to *'file evidnce and argument

to show a basis for the Board's jurisdiction , . . and lo prove that this appeal is tirnely or that good

cause exists for waiving the filing deadline." Id. Appellant was ordered ts submit such videnee

and argument "within I 5 calendar days of the date of [her AO]." /d. Thercfore , Appe llant u'as

required to file his jurisdietion eubmissions no later than December 17 ,213. 4n objcctive

rcview of the ilocket in tlris cae revcals that Appellant failed to timeiy eompiy with AJ

Clemnt's Order to submit videncc and/or argutnent establishing Board jurisdietion ver this

Pleacling Number : 2014020021 ' gubmiceion Oate ; eOl -OZE A86zl Qonfimaricn Number: 1gOlgiZE7 pzgo 4 of 1Q
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 97 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
97 Filed: 08/08/2014 a

appeal. See generel{u Doeket, Indeed the first filing by AppellanT after issuanc of the AO

occurred orlabout January 6,2014, which resulted in the first of four Failure to Serve Srders

being issued by AJ Clement, d., Tabs 6, 8; the necessity for AJ element to issuc four such

Orders is addressed "infra.

There ia no entry in the docket which rcpresent Appelianf seeking lcav of the Board to

untinrely file any submissions regarding jurisdiction after the AJ e letnent-imposed deadline of

December 17 ,2013. See Dscket. As suh, the multiple submissions frled by Appellant between

January 6 and Fcbruary 25,2014 are untimelii, and these frlings should b stricken fron th

reord. ln addition, any measured review of thcse Appellant submissions reveals that it is wholly

une lear to th reader as to what these filirigs actually provide in terrRs of the ultinrcte initial issue

of Board jurisdiction. Therefore, any filings by the Appellant aftr Deeenrber 17,2013, hut rnost

parlicularly the most reeent filing on Febrtrary 25,2Q14, should b stricken from the record, and

the Ageney respeetfully requests that Appellant's subn-rissions actually and offlcially'oe strickeu,

Motion to llismiss as Sanetion

I, eontrary to MPB Rcgulations, Appellant Refuses to Scrve Filings on tlc Agoncy'

Applieable lvIent Systems Protection Board ("IUSPB" or "Board") regulafions require a

party fa an appeal fo erve all filings/submission on the other party in an aetive Board as, See

5 C.F.R. 1?0i.26(bX2) ("The parties must serv on each other one copy of each Bleading, as

defined by $ 1201,a(b), and all documents submitted with it, except for th appeal They may dc

'The Ageney would noto that Appellant seems to have appropriately served a Febr-uary
25,2014 filing on the Agency; however, as discussed sup'tr, eonrplying with Board regulation
requiring service on th Agency docs not necessarily make subsequent filings to b tinrely or
relevant.

Flcadng Numer t 24-a?9Q21 Submiasion lata t ZA14-O}&A6el eoRflrmallen NumsF: 1S3V6a7P5? page 6 o 10
Case: 14-3104 Case:
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 98 15 Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
98 Filed: 08/08/2014

I hereby certify that on this date, service of the BRIEF AND

APPENDIX FOR RESPONDENT MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION

BOARD was made upon the following individual by mailing a true and

8500 Matthew Maury Ct.

DATE: * [',,,1