John K. Webb v. Department of the Air Force

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOHN K. WEBB,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2109
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-0752-16-0540-I-1.
______________________
Decided: July 10, 2025
______________________
JOHN K. WEBB, Pensacola, FL, pro se.
KYLE SHANE BECKRICH, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ELIZABETH
MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH.
______________________
Case: 24-2109 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

WEBB v. AIR FORCE 2
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL, Circuit Judge, and
BUMB, Chief District Judge.1
PER CURIAM.
John Webb petitions for review of a decision from the
Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming the De-
partment of the Air Force’s (Air Force) decision to remove
him from his position after his security clearance was re-
voked. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Webb worked for the Air Force as a civilian com-
puter scientist, a position requiring him to maintain a se-
curity clearance. S. Appx. 30.2 During his employment,
the government revoked Mr. Webb’s security clearance due
to concerns regarding his trustworthiness, reliability, and
judgment. Id. at 31. The Air Force then served Mr. Webb
with a Notice of Proposed Removal (Proposal) from his po-
sition for failing to maintain his security clearance. Id. at
31–32. The Proposal stipulated: (1) the removal, if sus-
tained, would be effective no earlier than thirty-one calen-
dar days from the day he received the notice; (2) a final
decision had not been made; (3) he had twenty calendar
days to provide a response; and, (4) he had a right to a rep-
resentative of his choice. Id. Over two months after serv-
ing the Proposal, and after allowing Mr. Webb time to
provide additional information, the Air Force removed him
from his position. Id. at 32. Mr. Webb appealed the re-
moval to the Board, which affirmed. S. Appx. 1–7.
1 Honorable Renée Marie Bumb, Chief Judge,
United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey,
sitting by designation.
2 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 24-2109 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

WEBB v. AIR FORCE 3
Mr. Webb petitions this court for review. We have jurisdic-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
DISCUSSION
The scope of our review of an appeal from a Board de-
cision is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision un-
less it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with-
out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
5. U.S.C. § 7703(c).
On appeal, Mr. Webb argues his removal was improper
because (1) he should have been given guidance earlier in
the process to have union representation; (2) the deciding
official had a conflict of interest, which caused her to sabo-
tage his employment for personal gain, and she falsified a
report; and, (3) he should be entitled to a monthly annuity
following his removal. Petitioner’s Informal Br. 4–9. Be-
cause Mr. Webb did not raise these arguments before the
Board, they are waived. Bosley v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 162
F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Even if not waived,
Mr. Webb’s arguments fail to show any error in the Board’s
decision that falls within the scope of our limited review.
Our review of an adverse action stemming from revo-
cation of a security clearance is limited to (1) whether the
security clearance was revoked; (2) whether the security
clearance was a requisite of the employee’s position; and
(3) whether the procedures of 5 U.S.C. § 7513 were fol-
lowed. Hornseth v. Dep’t of the Navy, 916 F.3d 1369, 1373–
74 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b), an employee
is entitled to procedural protections including: (1) at least
thirty days’ advance written notice identifying the specific
reasons for the action; (2) a reasonable time not less than
seven days to answer the allegations and to provide evi-
dence in support; (3) a legal representative; and, (4) a writ-
ten decision with specific reasons explaining the action
taken. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b). While the Board may also
Case: 24-2109 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

WEBB v. AIR FORCE 4
review whether an agency complied with its internal pro-
cedures in revoking a security clearance, it cannot review
the substance of the decision. Romero v. Dep’t of Def., 527
F.3d 1324, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, the Board found the undisputed evidence showed
that the Air Force revoked Mr. Webb’s security clearance,
Mr. Webb’s position required a security clearance, and the
Air Force followed the procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C.
§ 7513, as well as its own internal procedures. S. Appx. 16.
“[I]t provided [Mr. Webb] at least 30 days’ advance written
notice of the proposed action, afforded [him] a reasonable
time, but not less than 7 days, to submit an answer, ad-
vised him that he had the right to be represented by a rep-
resentative of his choice, and provided him with a written
decision explaining the agency’s reasons for its decision to
remove him.” Id. Mr. Webb does not challenge any of these
findings on appeal, which are supported by substantial ev-
idence. Mr. Webb therefore fails to show any reversible er-
ror in the Board’s decision.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Webb’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2109 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 4 of 4 --