Mary J. Mattson v. Department of the Treasury

Citations: 86 F.3d 211; 1996 WL 316423Docket: 95-3582

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; August 9, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mary J. Mattson petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which upheld her demotion from Investigative Support Supervisor (GS-11) to PAS Analyst (GS-9) by the Department of the Treasury's Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The demotion was effective November 13, 1994, due to allegations that Mattson permitted a subordinate, Veronica Dougherty, to misuse the Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) to access Mattson's daughter's tax account for non-official purposes. The IRS initially removed Mattson from her position, but this was later reduced to a demotion following consideration of mitigating factors by Joseph Cloonan, Director of the Philadelphia Service Center. Mattson's appeal to the MSPB was unsuccessful, leading to her appeal to the court.

The background reveals that Mattson had over 21 years of federal service with a clean record at the time of the incident. Her role involved reviewing tax returns for fraud and misconduct, utilizing the IDRS, which requires strict access protocols, including confidentiality of passwords and prohibition against accessing personal or family accounts. IRS regulations explicitly prevented employees from accessing accounts of relatives or friends, and Mattson was aware of these rules, having been properly profiled and authorized to access tax information pertinent to her duties. She routinely handled approximately 3,300 tax returns monthly. There was a particular interest in reviewing returns associated with Robert Graham, a convicted tax fraud perpetrator, which she argued supported her defense against the charges. Ultimately, the court reversed the MSPB's decision.

An IRS rule prohibits employees from accessing accounts of relatives and restricts access to accounts within the scope of official duties. Investigators obtain tax returns by entering the taxpayer's social security number, their own secret password, and a command code into a computer system, which allows them to access relevant documents. An investigation revealed that Veronica Dougherty accessed her son-in-law Vernon Gordon's tax return 96 times over four years, suspecting he had filed a fraudulent return. Dougherty also accessed her daughter's tax return five times, claiming Mattson, her manager, had granted her one-time permission to do so. After interviewing Dougherty, the agency's inspector spoke with Mattson, who confirmed Dougherty's claims and acknowledged the need for tax information for legal reasons. Following these interviews, Patricia Betlejewski, Mattson's superior, proposed Mattson's removal for allegedly permitting unauthorized use of the IDRS system. The charge against Mattson stated that she allowed Dougherty to access her daughter’s tax account for non-official purposes. The agency had the burden of proof to demonstrate that Mattson granted such permission. Notably, Mattson was the only witness with direct knowledge of the incident, but the agency's counsel requested Dougherty be subpoenaed to testify. However, Dougherty was unable to testify due to her health condition.

Mattson was involved in the investigation of Robert Graham for fraudulent tax returns. During the inquiry, Dougherty requested permission to access the tax return of Mattson's daughter, Ann Gordon, due to allegations that her son-in-law, Vernon Gordon, had filed a fraudulent joint return by forging Ann's signature. Mattson, recognizing the potential fraud associated with Graham, decided to obtain the return herself, knowing that agency rules prohibited Dougherty from accessing a relative's tax return. Mattson accessed the return using her credentials while Dougherty entered the necessary Social Security number into the system but did not view or gather information from the return.

After retrieving the tax return, Mattson contacted John Bell, the case agent for Graham, who declined interest in the return. Subsequently, Mattson completed form No. 3949 and sent the return for examination, after which she had no further involvement with it.

In sustaining charges against Mattson, the Administrative Judge (AJ) noted that her claim of accessing the return for official purposes was unsupported by the evidence, especially given the agency's prohibition against using the system for a relative's account. The AJ concluded that her decision to allow Dougherty to access the return constituted an unofficial use of the system.

On appeal, Mattson maintained that she did not violate any agency rules, asserting that her actions were in pursuit of investigating a fraudulent return. The agency charged her with allowing a subordinate to misuse the system for non-official business. The AJ found no substantial evidence supporting Mattson's claim that her actions were justified by an official purpose.

The Administrative Judge (AJ) found a contradiction in Mattson's motives when she directed Dougherty to enter her daughter's Social Security number into the IDRS, initially suggesting her motives were pure, aimed at reporting a potentially fraudulent tax return. This inconsistency led to the conclusion that the agency did not sufficiently prove the 'other than official business' element of the charge against Mattson. Consequently, the agency failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The board's decision was deemed unsupported by substantial evidence and was classified as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, allowing for its reversal under 5 U.S.C. 7703(c). The case is remanded with instructions to reinstate Mattson to her previous position, granting her back pay and other benefits, and she is entitled to recover her costs.