Dean Powell
Member
The deciding official sustained a proposal to terminate my 32 year unblemished career for misconduct. The proposing official did not afford me my entitled Due Process. She should have, as my immediate supervisor, personally discussed the incident with me and give me every opportunity to explain and defend my actions. Then with my input along with all the witness statements she could analyze the information and formulate an opinion of what happened. Next she would be required to apply the relevant Douglas Factors. The Douglas Factors are important in determining that an adverse action is warranted and that the penalty to be proposed is reasonable under the circumstances. Ms. Laverdet and I had no discussion about the incident, she did not apply the Douglas Factors, and she believed she was mandated to fire me. The proposal itself is Unconstitutional as it violates my Due Process entitlement. Subsequently any actions that were based on it are tainted. The proposal was poisoned as is anything derived from it. Your analysis of this incident and your decisions were solely based on Laverdet’s illegal proposal as you did no investigation of your own. You did not have an investigative interview with me. Additionally, all three postal officials, by their own admission, did not consider important mitigating factors such as the strong element of provocation on the part of Somoza. You did not and could not possibly cure the deficiencies of an unconstitutional proposal. When you stated that you only looked at my actions, and not those of Somoza, proves that you did not consider important mitigating factors, thus, violating my civil rights. So in no way did you cure Laverdets deficiencies. It is so obvious I was railroaded, denied Due Process. At the 650 and even in writing this letter I had planned on going into the day of the incident and explain and defend my actions step by step. However, as Mr. Ducomb wrote in his decision letter. Because of the procedural irregularities and the misapplication of postal policy is fatal to your case against me. The US Constitution and my rights outweigh the agencies desire to terminate me regardless. The question has become not if I’m guilty of these charges, which I am not, but that were my rights as an American citizen violated to the point that my Termination was in violation of the United States Constitution. MY QUESTION IS AM I CORRECT IN MY DEFENSE?
