Ask FELTG: If an employee lies during an oral or written response, can that dishonesty be considered a separate act of misconduct?

August 5, 2025

Thanks for the question. While an employee has the right to defend himself against potential discipline both orally and in writing, there is still a requirement for honesty during his response.

An MSPB case from last summer comes to mind, Sandine v. Army, DE-0752-15-0113-I-1 (July 1, 2024)(NP). Here’s a timeline (all dates are from 2014):

  • July 29: Agency proposed appellant’s 14-day suspension “on the basis of false statements, attendance-related offenses, and failure to follow regulations related to his unauthorized use of the fitness center during duty hours,” from April to July.
  • August 18: Appellant submitted a written response asserting that he had been authorized to use the fitness center and alleging that the proposing official had misrepresented his statements, threatened to fire him, and warned him against talking to human resources (HR) or the equal employment opportunity (EEO) office.
  • August 29: Deciding official issued a decision sustaining the charges and imposing the 14 -day suspension.
  • September 5: Appellant’s second-level supervisor (who was the proposing official in the previous action) proposed his removal based on one charge of false statements and/or deliberate misrepresentations with five underlying specifications, each of which identified an allegedly false statement from the August 18 written response to the proposed 14-day suspension.
  • Date unclear: Appellant provided an oral reply to the proposed removal, denying he made any false statements in his response to the proposed 14-day suspension, and stated that while he regretted the tone of the response, he stood by his statements.
  • November 21: Deciding official (a higher-level supervisor) issued a decision finding that the appellant made deliberate false statements with the intent to avoid or mitigate potential disciplinary actions, and attempted to deceive the deciding official in the suspension action and to malign the proposing official. He also noted that the appellant was afforded ample opportunity to correct any false statements, but failed to do so. Even still, the deciding official determined that the appellant “deserve[d] a chance to correct [his] behavior and lack of integrity” and mitigated the removal penalty to a demotion.

Id. at 2-5.

The appellant challenged his demotion to the MSPB, and the Board upheld the demotion, despite the appellant’s allegations that he was punished twice for the same conduct. The Board explained that although related, the suspension and the demotion were based on separate incidents of misconduct, and different facts, and thus were not barred by the prohibition against double punishment. See Williams v. DLA, 34 MSPR 54, 58 (1987) (finding that the agency did not improperly discipline the appellant twice for the same offense when it suspended him on the basis of absence without leave and then removed him on the basis of false statements provided in response to a proposed suspension). Id. at 6.

TL; DR. Dishonesty during an investigation or in response to proposed discipline is a distinct act of misconduct, and employees can be held accountable for such statements. info@feltg.com

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.