Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fuller v. Navy (2011-3180)

Fuller v. Navy (2011-3180)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14,455|Likes:
Published by FedSmith, Inc.

More info:

Published by: FedSmith, Inc. on Feb 28, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/28/2012

pdf

text

original

 
N
OTE
: This disposition is nonprecedential.
 
United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit
 __________________________ LERON J. FULLER,
 Petitioner,
v.DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Respondent.
 __________________________ 
2011-3180
 __________________________ 
Petition for review of the Merit Systems ProtectionBoard in Case No. DC0752110275-I-1.
 ___________________________ 
Decided: February 13, 2012
 ___________________________ 
L
ERON
J.
 
F
ULLER
, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, pro se.
ENNETH
D.
 
W
OODROW
, Trial Attorney, CommercialLitigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart-ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. Withhim on the brief were T
ONY 
W
EST
, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, J
EANNE
E.
 
D
 AVIDSON
, Director, and P
 ATRICIA 
M.
 
M
CCARTHY 
, Assistant Director.
 __________________________ 
 
FULLER
v.
NAVY 
 2
Before B
RYSON
, C
LEVENGER
, and O’M
 ALLEY 
,
CircuitJudges
.P
ER
C
URIAM
.D
ECISION
 LeRon J. Fuller petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board upholding his sus-pension from his position with the Department of theNavy after the Navy suspended his access to classifiedinformation. We affirm.B
 ACKGROUND
 Mr. Fuller was employed by the Navy as a MarineMachinery Mechanic at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. OnNovember 3, 2010, Mr. Fuller became disruptive andaggressive towards security personnel at the shipyard’ssecurity building. He was physically removed from thebuilding, and his badge was confiscated because hisdisruptive behavior raised concerns about the potentialfor workplace violence.Mr. Fuller was directed to report to the office of thepersonnel security supervisor the next day. When hereported as directed, Mr. Fuller was given written notifi-cation that the Navy intended to suspend his securityaccess. The notification included documentation settingforth the information that led to the proposed suspension,and it accorded him the right to respond to the proposedsuspension.On November 9, 2010, Mr. Fuller provided his re-sponse to the information in the notice. After consideringthe response, the shipyard’s security director, who hadthe authority to suspend employees’ access to classified
 
FULLER
v.
NAVY 
 3
and sensitive information, suspended Mr. Fuller’s secu-rity access. On that day, Mr. Fuller was scheduled tomeet with an administrative services specialist for a pre-action interview, but he did not appear for that interview.The deputy shipyard production superintendent sub-sequently issued a notice proposing to suspend Mr. Fullerindefinitely from his position, with the suspension to takeeffect no earlier than 30 days from the date of the notice.The notice stated that the reason for the proposed indefi-nite suspension was the suspension of Mr. Fuller’s accessto classified and sensitive information. The notice addedthat Mr. Fuller would continue to be on paid administra-tive leave status during the notice period, and it furtherprovided that Mr. Fuller could respond to the proposedsuspension orally or in writing within 15 days. Mr. Fullerreceived the notice on November 16, 2010, but he did notsubmit a response.On December 2, 2010, the production resource man-ager at the shipyard issued a final decision suspendingMr. Fuller indefinitely from his position, effective as of December 17, 2010. Mr. Fuller received a letter advisinghim of his indefinite suspension on December 9, 2010.The letter explained Mr. Fuller’s appeal rights, and Mr.Fuller appealed the suspension to the Merit SystemsProtection Board. On April 5, 2011, a Board administra-tive judge conducted a hearing on Mr. Fuller’s appeal.Following the hearing, the administrative judge sus-tained Mr. Fuller’s suspension. The administrative judgefound that Mr. Fuller’s position required a security clear-ance, that his security access was suspended, and that hewas indefinitely suspended from his job on that basis.The administrative judge also found that Mr. Fuller hadbeen given all the adverse action procedural rights to

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->