Department of the Navy v. Egan

Thomas Egan (defendant) worked as a laborer at the Trident Naval Refit Facility. As an employee of the Navy, Egan was subject to provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (the act). All employee positions at the facility were classified as sensitive. Egan needed to obtain a security clearance to retain his position. The director of the Naval Civilian Personnel Command denied Egan’s security clearance based on his criminal convictions and self-disclosed drinking problems. Egan appealed to the Personnel Security Appeals Board (the board), but his removal went into effect before the board acted. The board ultimately affirmed the denial of his security clearance. The Navy placed Egan on administrative leave pending the final decision and eventually effected his removal. Egan exercised his right to review by the Merit Systems Protection Board under § 7513(a) of the United States Code. Section 7513(a) provided that an employee could seek review of an agency’s decision, and that the board should sustain the decision if it was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The board’s presiding official reviewed the merits of the case and reversed the agency’s decision, holding that the burden was on the agency to prove the appropriateness of its decision. The presiding official reasoned that because the agency did not submit a list of the criteria it employed and did not carefully balance the interests of the parties, it did not meet its burden. The full board heard the case and reversed the presiding official’s ruling, concluding that it could only review the procedural elements of the case, not the merits of the decision. Egan appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed the board’s decision that it had no authority to review the merits of the security-clearance determination.