Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CASE14-3104
PARTICIPANTS
Document:
ONLY16 Document:
Page: 1 15Filed:
Page:
08/08/2014
1 Filed: 08/08/2014
EUGENE D. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
V
NO. 14-3t04
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
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
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
ordered him to file evidence and argument accordingly, and indicated the
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
contracts," health issues that "raised life threatening concerns," and design
He also discussed prior Board appeals that were filed in 2000 and 2001. RA
Despite the record closing on December 27, 2014, Mr. Johnson filed
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
judge found that Mr. Johnson failed to articulate any basis for the Board's
not consider his February 24,2014 submission because it was untimely and
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 Initial Decision became the Board's Final decision on April 11,
2014, because Mr. Johnson did not file a petition for review.
1 Has the netitioner ever harl an other case in this Court. a United States
D ln ommission?
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
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
his appeal and the administrative judge considered it when she dismissed his
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
of the Army,699 F.2d 1312, I314 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,462 U.S. 1122
(1e8s)
2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, the evidence is not remotely
explain the basis for his appeal..." despite being provided an opportunity to
should be affirmed
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
Dep't. of Homeland 9ec.,437 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2006). (Petitioner
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
INDEX TO
InitialDecision(March7,20l4). .............1
Certified Index.
v
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: March 7,2014
HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.
BEFORE
Sarah P. Clement
Administrative Judge
INITIAL DECISION
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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
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
IA-REFORMACT MERIT
DATE OF RECEIPT
TAB VOLUME DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT OR ISSUANCE
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
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.
! 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
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?
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.
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.
or OMB 24-0009
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
Gontinuation Sheet
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.
Continuation Sheet
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.
v
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: December 2,2013
HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
-
January 7r2nl4
NOTICE TO:
Eugene D. Johnson
8500 Matthew Maury Court
Spotsylania, \fA 225 53
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
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
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
FROMT ugene,Johnsgn
RE EC-314S14.150-J-1
DATE. Jnuary?,2tL4
o'
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
FD ltr
'. t. li
loroG{ rry
tkrumodUory
F\rf 8d
-
-
HrBrdr Coul
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,
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,
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.
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
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
,_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
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;
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
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
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
1.oZ
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
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.
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
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
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
B
Service Center to include FY 2001 - n
# =r -ls f)
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
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 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
. 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 Provided Saving Energy Cost Reviews: Provided field surveys ofthe IIVAC to
include lighting proposed reto t desigued to reduce cost.
o Reviewed ageney budget oversight and reconciled Day Time Matron Services
and Preventative Maintenance coutacts to credit 8A61 account the above
mones stoted.
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 #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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
*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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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:
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
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
Respectfttlly Yours'
Eugene D- Johnson
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.
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.
Page 5 of I
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
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.
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
F -l:i
r
Signature;
g^/
hnson
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
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
RA 8t
CERTIFICATE OF SRIrICE
I certify that the attached Document(s) was (wer{ sent os indicsted this
day to each of the following:
Apoellant
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
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.
RA 83
{ilnlsdcsu
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 )
)
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
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,
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
BOARD was made upon the following individual by mailing a true and
DATE: * [',,,1