Ronald R. Randall v. Department of the Air Force

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RONALD R. RANDALL,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2303
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-0752-18-0484-I-1.
______________________
Decided: April 8, 2025
______________________
RONALD RAY RANDALL , Fowler, OH, pro se.
ANNE D ELMARE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , L OREN MISHA
P REHEIM .
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-2303 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

RANDALL v. AIR FORCE 2
Ronald R. Randall petitions pro se for review of a final
order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”)
affirming his termination from the Department of the Air
Force. See Randall v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. CH-0752-
18-0484-I-1, 2024 WL 3887264 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 20, 2024).
We affirm.
I
Mr. Randall began working for the Air Force in 1985
as a realty specialist at the Youngstown Air Reserve
Station in Vienna, Ohio. During the relevant time period,
he reported to Ronald Bokan, Chief of Resources for the
Civil Engineering Resources Section.
Mr. Randall became convinced that the federal gov-
ernment was surveilling him and that his supervisor
(Mr. Bokan) was involved. On August 28, 2017,
Mr. Randall confronted Mr. Bokan, accusing him of direct-
ing his thirteen-year-old daughter to drive by
Mr. Randall’s house to spy on him and asking what kind
of car she drove. Two days later, on August 30, 2017,
Mr. Randall approached Mr. Bokan, claiming that one of
his packages had been tampered with and allegedly
stating that “due to [his] mental anguish, he might shoot
someone, he might kill someone.” S. App’x 29.1
Mr. Bokan promptly contacted Security Forces, who
arrived at the scene and ultimately committed
Mr. Randall to involuntary medical confinement. That
same day, Mr. Randall was barred from the Reserve
Station for two consecutive thirty-day periods and subse-
quently one year, through October 31, 2018.
1 Citations to “S. App’x” are to the supplemental
appendix filed by the government with its corrected
informal response brief.
Case: 24-2303 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

RANDALL v. AIR FORCE 3
On January 7, 2018, Mr. Randall was indefinitely
suspended because of his ban from the Reserve Station.2
Thereafter, he declined to undergo a psychiatric fitness
evaluation. On June 25, 2018, Mr. Randall was removed
from his position for Conduct Unbecoming based on the
threats he made on August 30, 2017. Mr. Randall ap-
pealed to the Board on July 19, 2018, alleging, inter alia,
that he did not tell Mr. Bokan that he might kill someone.
The Administrative Judge (“AJ”) found Mr. Bokan’s
testimony more credible than Mr. Randall’s, in part
because it was consistent with Mr. Bokan’s actions direct-
ly after the encounter and was corroborated by another
witness. The AJ determined that the Air Force had
established a nexus between Mr. Randall’s misconduct
and a legitimate government interest, ultimately affirm-
ing his removal. On August 20, 2024, the full Board
denied Mr. Randall’s petition for review and affirmed the
AJ’s initial decision. The initial decision became the
decision of the Board. Mr. Randall thereafter petitioned
this court for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II
This court must affirm a decision of the Board unless
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 evi-
2 After Mr. Randall filed a Board appeal challeng-
ing his indefinite suspension, he was returned to pay
status (though he still remained banned from the Reserve
Station). The Board subsequently dismissed
Mr. Randall’s appeal challenging his indefinite suspen-
sion as moot.
Case: 24-2303 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 04/08/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

RANDALL v. AIR FORCE 4
dence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). An agency decision is sup-
ported by substantial evidence if it is supported by “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). “[T]he Board’s credibil-
ity determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal.”
Briley v. Nat’l Archives & Recs. Admin., 236 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted).
On petition for review, Mr. Randall primarily alleges
that the Board failed to consider relevant facts.
Mr. Randall reiterates his argument that he did not
threaten anybody on August 30, 2017, urging that
Mr. Bokan, the other corroborating witness, and others at
the Air Force falsely accused him, and that the Security
Forces withheld surveillance audio/video evidence of the
exchange that would have shown that he did not threaten
to kill anybody. But the Board did not err in its rejection
of this theory. And Mr. Randall’s disagreement with the
AJ’s findings of fact and credibility determinations is not
a basis for overturning the Board’s decision. See Haebe v.
Dep’t of Just., 288 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he
[Board] is not free to overturn an administrative judge’s
demeanor-based credibility findings merely because it
disagrees with those findings.”). The Board fully consid-
ered the testimony of all the witnesses and determined
that the testimony of Mr. Bokan and his corroborating
witness were more consistent with the record than the
testimony of Mr. Randall. We conclude that the Board’s
determination that Mr. Randall made the alleged threat
on August 30, 2017, is supported by substantial evidence,
notwithstanding his conclusory statements to the contra-
ry.
Mr. Randall also alleges a violation of the Whistle-
blower Protection Act, urging that the Air Force conspired
to falsely accuse and remove him from service in retalia-
Case: 24-2303 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 04/08/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

RANDALL v. AIR FORCE 5
tion to an email he sent in 2016 stating, in reference to
RV parking on the base, that “[w]e at Youngstown Air
Reserve Station do what we want, when we want, and we
answer to no one; I’m only joking.” Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2.
It is undisputed, however, that Mr. Randall failed to raise
a whistleblower retaliation complaint before the Board,
and we accordingly decline to consider this argument in
the first instance on petition for review. See Bosley v.
MSPB, 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Randall’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the deci-
sion of the Board.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2303 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 04/08/2025

-- 5 of 5 --