Bohdan Senyszyn v. Department of the Treasury

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3322
BOHDAN SENYSZYN,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Respondent.
Bohdan Senyszyn, of Brooklyn, New York, pro se.
Joseph E. Ashman, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on
the brief were Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, and Brian M. Simkin, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board

-- 1 of 4 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3322
BOHDAN SENYSZYN,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in PH-0752-05-0403-C-3.
__________________________
DECIDED: July 8, 2009
__________________________
Before MAYER, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Bohdan Senyszyn appeals the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board
denying his petition for review of the initial decision affirming the Internal Revenue
Service’s (“IRS”) action in maintaining his indefinite suspension after resolution of the
criminal charges against him for the purpose of effectuating his removal from service.
Senyszyn v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. PH-0752-05-0403-C-3 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 16, 2008).
The board concluded that there was no new, previously unavailable evidence and that

-- 2 of 4 --

the administrative judge made no error in law or regulation affecting the outcome. 5
C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). We affirm.
Senyszyn was employed as an Internal Revenue Agent with the IRS in
Patterson, New Jersey. On February 15, 2005, he was arrested and charged with
violating 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(5), which makes it a crime for a revenue agent to
knowingly create an opportunity for any person to defraud the United States. The IRS
proceeded to indefinitely suspend Senyszyn from employment pending further
investigation or resolution of the charges against him. The notice of decision letter
warned him of the possibility that a removal could be proposed prior to termination of
the indefinite suspension, which would occur upon completion of the investigation or
resolution of the criminal charges against him. On April 13, 2006, a Federal grand jury
indicted Senyszyn on seven counts. He pled guilty to four criminal charges on
September 20, 2007, including, inter alia, tax evasion and preparing a false tax return in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7). Nineteen days after his guilty plea, the IRS
proposed his removal from service.
On appeal, Senyszyn argues that under the express terms of the notice letter
accompanying his indefinite suspension, the suspension should have been terminated
immediately upon the entering of his guilty plea, because the plea resolved the criminal
charges against him. Senyszyn claims that by maintaining the indefinite suspension for
nineteen days after resolution of the criminal charges against him, and only then
proposing his removal from service, the IRS failed to comply with its own standards and
improperly extended the indefinite suspension. Senyszyn does not appeal the removal
2008-3322 2

-- 3 of 4 --

2008-3322 3
action; rather, he seeks back pay and benefits for the period of time between the
resolution of the criminal charges against him and his removal.
The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision of the board is limited.
Generally, we must affirm the decision unless we find it 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). The board concluded that the IRS met its
burden to establish the validity of continuing Senyszyn’s indefinite suspension, because
(1) in the decision letter informing him of his indefinite suspension the agency notified
Senyszyn of the possibility of further adverse action, and (2) the agency acted within a
reasonable time after resolution of the criminal charges to initiate the removal action.
Upon review of the record, it appears that Senyszyn was notified of the potential of
future adverse action, specifically, removal from service, both when his indefinite
suspension was proposed and initiated. In this context an agency may maintain an
indefinite suspension for a reasonable time after resolution of criminal charges for the
purpose of effectuating a removal from service.

-- 4 of 4 --