Tysha Holmes, a former Army Physician Assistant, was removed from her position in 2010 following an administrative judge's finding that her due process rights were violated when she was disciplined based on prior records without notice. The initial order required the Army to reinstate her, pay backpay, and provide interim relief payments under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(2)(A). However, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) later reversed this, excusing the Army from paying interim relief during periods when Holmes was already receiving compensation from the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). After a subsequent removal was upheld on remand, Holmes petitioned for enforcement, arguing the Army impermissibly tried to recoup the interim relief payments she had received. The MSPB eventually issued a final order in January 2025 finding that the Army had properly calculated any debt for a prior period and had ceased all recoupment efforts for the protected period from December 2013 to July 2014. Holmes petitioned the Federal Circuit for review of this compliance order.
The Federal Circuit applied the standard of review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), which allows the court to set aside an MSPB action only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, obtained without required procedures, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court placed the burden on Holmes to prove reversible error. Regarding the Army's debt calculations for the first time period, Holmes argued the agency failed to provide source documents to verify data in its spreadsheets. The court found this unpersuasive, noting that the Army provided a narrative statement and detailed spreadsheets based on a 25-page workbook documenting specific line items, payments, and withholdings. The court held that this constituted substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination that the Army complied with the order to explain its calculations. Furthermore, Holmes offered no specific challenges to the math itself or proof that she never received the payments described. On the issue of the second time period, the court noted that Holmes identified no evidence that the Army actually attempted to recoup payments during the protected window. The Army had provided declarations stating that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service had stopped all efforts to recoup those specific payments. Finally, the court addressed Holmes's due process claim, citing the requirement for a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court found no violation because the extensive procedural record included multiple hearings and orders, and Holmes presented no evidence that she was denied a fair hearing on the merits.
The decision affirms the MSPB's final order, meaning the Department of the Army is legally cleared of the obligation to halt recoupment efforts for the period in question, as it has already ceased such efforts. The ruling reinforces that detailed narrative explanations and spreadsheets can satisfy the evidentiary burden for administrative compliance without the need to produce every underlying source document if the methodology is clear. It leaves open the question of what specific documentation is required for future compliance petitions but establishes that a lack of specific mathematical challenges from the petitioner can be fatal to their argument. The case is remanded with no further action required from the Army regarding the specific compliance order at issue.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download