Changes

*John Dennis, Navy, theft of government property

*John Dennis, Navy, theft of government property

Six of the seven employees appealed the terminations on grounds that the penalties were too severe (Cicero argued that before he could follow his supervisor's direction, another employee had already completed the task).

All seven employees appealed the terminations on grounds that the penalties were too severe (Cicero also argued that before he could follow his supervisor's direction, another employee had already completed the task).

Originally the MSPB upheld all seven terminations, but then reopened the case and requested comments via the [[Federal Register]] regarding whether it could reduce a penalty given by a government agency for employee misconduct, if it determined that "the penalty does not promote the efficiency of the service", and whether preponderance of the evidence is the proper standard to use.  Upon reconsideration, it determined that it had the authority to reduce a penalty, that the preponderance standard was proper, and outlined 12 factors that agencies must use in determining the proper punishment (if the agency fails to consider the applicable factors its decision will not be granted deference):

Originally the MSPB upheld all seven terminations, but then reopened the case and requested comments via the [[Federal Register]] regarding whether it could reduce a penalty given by a government agency for employee misconduct, if it determined that "the penalty does not promote the efficiency of the service", and whether preponderance of the evidence is the proper standard to use.  Upon reconsideration, it determined that it had the authority to reduce a penalty, that the preponderance standard was proper, and outlined 12 factors that agencies must use in determining the proper punishment (if the agency fails to consider the applicable factors its decision will not be granted deference):