Why ‘Lack of Candor’ Can Get Federal Employees in Real Trouble

Once a year, we ask for your support to keep this blog and your dedicated blogger going. So here we are on Week #7 of our eight-week annual fundraising. Our previous funding ran out in August 2020. We recognize that blogging life has no certainty, and this year is no exception.  If you care what we do here, please see GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27.  We could use your help. Grazie!  Merci! Gracias!

According to OPM, “lack of candor”  focuses on an employee’s duty to be forthcoming in responses with regard to all facts and information in their possession. Frederick v. Justice, 52 MSPR 126, 133 (1991); Fargnoli v. Dept. of Commerce, 123 MSPR 330 (2016). 
Federal Times/Legal Matters cited the 1998 case of Lachance v. Erickson, 118 S.Ct. 753: “…. a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided that a federal agency may discipline an employee who lies or lacks candor to the agency regarding alleged employment-related misconduct, including falsely denying the offense, such that the agency can discipline the employee not only for the underlying act of misconduct, but also for the lie or lack of candor. It’s the latter (the lie) that almost always results in a more severe penalty than if the employee simply admitted the underlying wrongdoing.” Read in full here.
A most public “lack of candor’ case that made relatively recent news is here.
Below is an excerpt from FSGB Case No. 2014-049. This case is notable because the grievant is a tenured DS agent who got in trouble, among other things, for not being “entirely forthcoming,” the fact that the agency has access to private emails, and how each instance of not being forthcoming becomes a specification in the charge.
HELD: The Department of State carried its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that grievant, a tenured Diplomatic Security Officer, committed the acts with which he is charged. The Board found that a 10-day suspension without pay was reasonable. The grievance appeal was denied.
OVERVIEW: Grievant, a tenured Diplomatic Security (DS) Agent, appeals the Agency’s denial of his grievance in which he sought a reduction of a 10-day suspension, the penalty he received for multiple disciplinary charges. The original charges included: (1) improper personal conduct; (2) misuse of government resources; (3) lack of candor; (4) poor judgment; and (5) failure to follow regulations. Although the deciding official declined to find grievant liable for Charge 4 and although grievant takes responsibility for Charges 2, 3, and 5, he denies the misconduct alleged in Charge 1 and the reasonableness of the penalty. The deciding official determined that the 10-day suspension originally proposed remained reasonable even though one charge was not sustained. The Board concluded that agency satisfied its burden of proving that grievant committed the improper personal conduct as charged, i.e. groping a female, subordinate employee (grabbing her buttocks) at a Marine House toga party in The Board also concluded that the 10-day suspension was reasonable under the totality of the Douglas analysis and that the agency was not obligated to reduce the penalty originally proposed merely because one of the charges was not sustained.

###