Roland Chandler, Petitioner, v. Department of the Air Force, Respondent, 883 F.2d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

DECISION

The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), CH07528610164, affirming the Department of the Air Force's removal of Roland Chandler (Chandler) for misconduct, is affirmed.

OPINION

Substantial evidence supports the presiding official's determination that the Air Force weighed relevant factors as prescribed in Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPB 313 (1981), before proposing Chandler's removal, and that an appropriate penalty was selected. We cannot say that removal was totally unwarranted in light of all relevant factors. See Yeschick v. Department of Transportation, 801 F.2d 383, 384-85 (Fed. Cir. 1986); DeWitt v. Department of the Navy, 747 F.2d 1442, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054 (1985).

We do not agree with Chandler that "the presiding official erred in failing to find retaliation against Chandler by Evans." The presiding official was at liberty to credit Evans' testimony, that testimony being neither inherently improbable nor discredited by undisputed fact or physical evidence. See Carosella v. United States Postal Service, 816 F.2d 638, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

We also deny Chandler's motion to remand to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The district court correctly found it had no claims of discrimination before it and correctly transferred the case to this court. See Daniels v. United States Postal Service, 726 F.2d 723, 724 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Hill v. Department of the Air Force, 796 F.2d 1469, 1471-72 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Hymen v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 799 F.2d 1421, 1422 (9th Cir. 1986).