A Senior Foreign Service Officer with over 21 years of Foreign Service experience was serving as an Office Director when he was disciplined for repeated violations of the Department’s Policy on Violence and Threatening Behavior in the work place. The FSO filed a grievance contending that the five-day suspension as unreasonable (also includes loss of pay, and a discipline letter being placed in his Official Personnel File for two years).
The FSO in his grievance filing also cites as one of the mitigating factors a link between his anger and inappropriate language at the workplace, symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and adaptation disorder as a result of his service in a Provincial Reconstruction Team. The grievance appeal was denied.
Goya – The Disasters of War | Plate 65: Spanish: Qué alboroto es este? English: What is this hubbub? (wikipedia)
From FSGB Case No. 2011-004 dtd. August 19, 2011:
HELD: The Department carried its burden of proof in deciding to discipline grievant, a Senior Foreign Service Officer charged with inappropriate conduct, for five days. Grievant failed to prove that he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which he asserted was responsible for his repeated violations of the Department’s Policy on Violence and Threatening Behavior in the work place.
SUMMARY: Grievant, a Senior Foreign Service Officer, was Office Director in the Bureau of [REDACTED] when he was charged with one count and seven specifications of inappropriate conduct in interactions with his staff and others. The charge and specifications include, for example, repeatedly referring to women as “bitches” and “hormonal,” yelling, banging on his desk and forcefully expressing his political views throughout the office.
A five-day suspension was proposed, to which grievant did not respond, and the Deciding Official sustained the specifications and penalty. Grievant filed a grievance, accepting full responsibility and expressing regret, but asserting, in mitigation, that his one-month suspension from duties (with pay) and the humiliation he suffered before his colleagues already constituted punitive action. He further claimed that, because the charged behavior was completely out of character, he sought mental health counseling and his clinical social worker identified a link between his behavior and PTSD as a result of his earlier service in [REDACTED]. Grievant also argued that a five-day suspension was not comparable to penalties imposed in other similar cases. The Department found no grounds for mitigation and grievant appealed to this Board.
The Board held that grievant knew or should have known the Department’s policy on threatening behavior. As a senior official, grievant did not justify a reduction in penalty based on case comparisons of lower level officers engaged in isolated incidents. Declarations by grievant’s subordinates and colleagues clearly demonstrated that he created a hostile and threatening work environment. Grievant made no claim to being unaware of his behavior and did not defend himself by raising the issue of PTSD or counseling until after the Proposing and Deciding officials issued their letters of discipline. His belated consultation with a clinical social worker to whom he described his behavior appears to be self serving. The social worker did not diagnose grievant with PTSD, but rather stated that based on grievant’s explanations, he was probably suffering from mild PTSD. For seven months after grievant’s return from [REDACTED] he served at the [REDACTED] apparently without incident. He presented no explanation about experiences in [REDACTED] that could have caused PTSD, or testimonials from others at the [REDACTED] or prior to his service in [REDACED] to support his claim that PSTD accounted for his “out of character” behavior afterwards. The Department presented overwhelming evidence that grievant violated its policy against threatening behavior. The penalty imposed by the Department was found to be within the realm of reasonableness.
The grievance appeal was denied.