Brian G. Gladden v. Department of Defense

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BRIAN G. GLADDEN,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2227
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-18-0553-I-1.
______________________
Decided: September 5, 2025
______________________
BRIAN G REGORY G LADDEN, Washington, DC, pro se.
STEPHANIE F LEMING, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, for re-
spondent. Also represented by ALBERT S. I AROSSI, P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY , YAAKOV ROTH .
______________________
Before D YK, L INN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-2227 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

GLADDEN v. DEFENSE 2
Brian G. Gladden appeals a Merit Systems Protection
Board (“Board”) order affirming the Department of Defense
(“government”) decision removing Mr. Gladden from his
position as a Medical Support Assistant at the Walter Reed
National Military Medical Center (“Walter Reed”). We af-
firm.
I
Mr. Gladden served as a Medical Support Assistant –
primarily as a clerk at the Dentistry Clinic’s front desk –
at Walter Reed from April 2016 to January 2018. Shortly
after starting his job at Walter Reed, Mr. Gladden and a
co-worker, Philanya Conkle, developed a strained working
relationship. In a memorandum dated June 17, 2016, Mr.
Gladden’s supervisor counseled Mr. Gladden and Ms.
Conkle to resolve their “disruptive tension.” S’Appx 46-47.1
About two months later, in a memorandum dated August
25, 2016, Mr. Gladden was notified that “multiple incidents
and complaints [were] reported from staff and patients re-
garding [his] performance.” S’Appx 48-49 (stating that,
among other things, Mr. Gladden violated Health Insur-
ance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)
and potentially compromised patients’ personally identifi-
able information).
On August 31, 2016, Ms. Conkle submitted a written
complaint to her supervisor alleging Mr. Gladden had “sub-
jected her to sexual harassment.” S’Appx 20. More specif-
ically, Ms. Conkle alleged Mr. Gladden made “[n]onstop
and continually obnoxious” comments about women as
they walked past the front desk, and that his “conduct and
overt sexual conversations [made her] extremely uncom-
fortable.” S’Appx 56. The Director for Dentistry at Walter
Reed then ordered an inquiry into Ms. Conkle’s allegations.
1 “S’Appx” refers to the Supplemental Appendix sub-
mitted by the government. ECF No. 23.
Case: 24-2227 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

GLADDEN v. DEFENSE 3
Of the 15 allegations that were investigated, seven were
found substantiated or partially substantiated.
In October 2016, management at Walter Reed took ad-
ditional steps to address the reported HIPAA violations
and sexual harassment. More specifically, Mr. Gladden
was formally reprimanded for violating HIPAA on October
17. And the Chief of Walter Reed’s Dental Department is-
sued a notice of proposed removal based on charges of in-
appropriate conduct and violations of HIPAA the next day.
Mr. Gladden responded to the notice of proposed removal,
denying both charges.
On January 10, 2018, the deciding official issued a no-
tice of decision, sustaining the charges of inappropriate
conduct and determining removal was appropriate. Mr.
Gladden appealed the government’s removal decision to
the Board by filing a formal complaint of race and age dis-
crimination. In its initial decision, the Board determined
that the deciding official properly applied the Douglas fac-
tors in concluding removal was reasonable. On review, the
Board affirmed its initial decision.
Mr. Gladden timely appealed the Board’s final order.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II
Our review of Board decisions is limited by statute.
The “court shall review the record and hold unlawful and
set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions found
to be—(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without
procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence . . . .”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Substantial evidence generally exists
where a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as ad-
equate to support a conclusion. See Haebe v. Dep’t of Just.,
288 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Case: 24-2227 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 09/05/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

GLADDEN v. DEFENSE 4
III
On appeal, Mr. Gladden does not challenge the Board’s
application of the law. Rather, Mr. Gladden concedes that
he “simply did not meet [his] burden of proof” when his case
was pending before the Board, Gladden Br. 6, adding that
at that time he was in “total disbelief,” Gladden Br. 13, and
“unable to present facts with thorough” explanation, Glad-
den Br. 2.2 Mr. Gladden explains that he is providing nar-
rative support “in hopes of producing some measure for the
consideration of a favorable outcome.” Gladden Br. 15. Mr.
Gladden also argues that the Board erred in affirming the
government’s removal decision because the government
and Board improperly considered a previous sexual harass-
ment charge and resulting settlement.
Mr. Gladden points to no record evidence supporting
his contention that the government relied on a previous
sexual harassment charge, or for his related argument that
the Board overlooked the government’s purported reliance
on these materials. To the contrary, substantial evidence
supports the Board’s finding that the government did not
base its removal decision on the prior charge and settle-
ment. S’Appx 30 (crediting on-point testimony from gov-
ernment decisionmaker).
Mr. Gladden’s suggestion that he did not meet his bur-
den of proof because of his mental status, which he de-
scribes as “[p]sychogenic [s]hock,” Gladden Br. 13, and
argument that the Board “thwarted” his ability to present
his defense, Gladden Br. 15, are likewise unsupported and
unavailing. No record evidence shows a lack of competence
or lack of opportunity to present his case. To the contrary,
Mr. Gladden admits that he “simply did not meet the
2 Certain pages of Mr. Gladden’s opening brief are un-
numbered. Our citations are to the ECF-generated page
numbers stamped at the top of each page upon filing.
Case: 24-2227 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 09/05/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

GLADDEN v. DEFENSE 5
burden of proof.” Gladden Br. 6; see also id. at 5 (“I exe-
cuted poorly, with the presentation of a valid argument in
my defense.”). The record shows that Mr. Gladden was
given opportunities to present evidence to both the govern-
ment and the Board. S’Appx 57-58 (investigation report
indicating that Mr. Gladden was interviewed and submit-
ted letter denying any form of harassment); S’Appx 72-77
(brief prepared by Mr. Gladden responding to government’s
notice of proposed removal).
IV
We have considered Mr. Gladden’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, and for
the reasons provided above, we affirm the Board.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2227 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 09/05/2025

-- 5 of 5 --