Lentz v. Interior ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 22-2009    Document: 16     Page: 1   Filed: 11/04/2022
    NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    CHASE M. LENTZ,
    Petitioner
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    Respondent
    ______________________
    2022-2009
    ______________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in No. SF-1221-15-0688-W-1.
    ______________________
    Decided: November 4, 2022
    ______________________
    CHASE M. LENTZ, Fresno, CA, pro se.
    JOSHUA W. MOORE, Commercial Litigation Branch,
    Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
    ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD
    T. BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
    MCCARTHY.
    ______________________
    Before DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16     Page: 2    Filed: 11/04/2022
    2                                          LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    Chase M. Lentz was employed as a botanist by the Bu-
    reau of Land Management (BLM), which is a component of
    the Department of the Interior. After he resigned his posi-
    tion, he filed an individual-right-of-action appeal with the
    Merit Systems Protection Board under the Whistleblower
    Enhanced Protection Act (WEPA), 
    5 U.S.C. §§ 1214
    (a),
    2302(b)(8), complaining, as relevant here, that Interior had
    retaliated against him for making disclosures protected by
    WEPA. Specifically, he alleged that he was issued a letter
    of reprimand and ultimately suspended in retaliation for
    certain assertions (disclosures) he made about one of his
    supervisors, namely, that she had (1) stolen a piece of pa-
    per from him, (2) lied to Mr. Lentz’s other supervisors by
    denying that she had authorized him to take a certain ac-
    tion he took, and (3) lied by denying that she knew he was
    hiring a new intern.
    The Board rejected Mr. Lentz’s request for relief, con-
    cluding that he had not proved that he had made any “pro-
    tected” disclosures, as no reasonable person would view the
    actions he disclosed to be abuses of discretion or illegal.
    Lentz v. Department of Interior, No. SF-1221-15-0688-W-1,
    
    2022 WL 2388642
     (M.S.P.B. June 30, 2022) (Board Op.).
    Mr. Lentz appeals, arguing that the Board improperly split
    this appeal from other appeals he had pending before the
    Board and, in any event, reached an unreasonable conclu-
    sion. Because there was no improper bifurcation that pre-
    vented a full and fair adjudication of the issues Mr. Lentz
    raised, and because he has not established a basis for dis-
    turbing the Board’s factual findings under the applicable
    standard of review, we affirm.
    I
    A
    Mr. Lentz worked as a botanist at BLM’s Redding, Cal-
    ifornia, Field Office for more than a decade. Lentz v. De-
    partment of Interior, No. SF-1221-15-0688-W-1, 
    2016 WL 2893576
     (M.S.P.B. May 13, 2016) (Initial Decision, by
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 3    Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                          3
    Administrative Judge) (AJ Op.), Supplemental Appendix
    (SAppx.) 2. On May 15, 2014, one of Mr. Lentz’s supervi-
    sors, J.M., issued him a reprimand letter. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 2. 1
    The letter charged him with “failing to follow proper proce-
    dures,” “acting outside the scope of his authority,” and be-
    ing “dishonest,” based on specifications that he had
    authorized a contractor to graze goats on BLM land with-
    out consulting his supervisors, insisted that he had con-
    sulted with R.C.W., one of his supervisors, about that
    action and received approval for it from her, and accused
    her of lying when she denied his assertions. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 2–
    3; see 
    id.,
     SAppx. 19–20. On November 13, 2014, a different
    supervisor, S.A., issued Mr. Lentz a notice proposing to
    suspend him for fourteen days for “conduct unbecoming”
    and “acting outside the scope of his authority,” specifying,
    in relevant part, that Mr. Lentz had hired an intern with-
    out supervisory approval and again accused a supervisor of
    lying. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 3. On February 10, 2015, J.M. partly
    sustained both charges and suspended Mr. Lentz for four-
    teen days, starting February 15. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 4. But on
    February 11, Mr. Lentz informed BLM that he was resign-
    ing effective February 13, because of “ongoing harassment,
    discrimination and reprisal” that had resulted in “a hostile
    work environment.” 
    Id.
    Mr. Lentz then sought relief from the Office of Special
    Counsel, filing a complaint under 
    5 U.S.C. § 1214
    (a)(1)(A)
    on December 1, 2014. 
    Id.
     He alleged that he had been re-
    taliated against for disclosing that his supervisor had made
    material misrepresentations and omissions. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 5.
    The Office notified Mr. Lentz in May 2015 “that it had ter-
    minated its inquiry into his allegations.” 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 4. On
    July 12, 2015, he filed the present individual-right-of-ac-
    tion appeal with the Board under 
    5 U.S.C. §§ 1214
    (a)(3)(A)
    1   We follow the Board’s use of initials in referring to
    certain people in this case.
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 4    Filed: 11/04/2022
    4                                           LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    and 1221(a). 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 1, 5. He continued to press his
    allegations that BLM had retaliated against him for pro-
    tected whistleblowing activity by disciplining and then con-
    structively discharging him. 
    Id.
    B
    The Board administrative judge to whom the present
    appeal was assigned issued an initial decision on May 13,
    2016. Appx. 13–50; see AJ Op., SAppx. 1–38. The AJ’s de-
    cision addressed, in relevant part, whether Mr. Lentz
    proved that he had made any “protected” disclosures by a
    preponderance of the evidence. AJ Op., SAppx. 16–31. The
    AJ concluded that he had not and, on that basis, denied
    him relief. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 17–19, 26, 29–31.
    The AJ first rejected Mr. Lentz’s claim based on the
    disclosure that his supervisor R.C.W. confiscated a sheet of
    paper containing a quotation from The Great Gatsby that
    he had taped to the back of his chair in the office. Id,
    SAppx. 16–19. The AJ found that no reasonable person
    would believe that the “quotation amounted to speech on a
    matter of public concern,” such that Mr. Lentz could not
    have reasonably believed that its removal “violated his
    First Amendment right to free speech.” 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 17. As
    to any reasonable belief in a due process violation, the AJ
    rejected the claim, determining that Mr. Lentz did not
    prove that he “reasonably believed that he had a protected
    property interest in the piece of paper containing the quo-
    tation taped to the back of his chair,” 
    id.,
     SAppx. 18, and
    “[t]hus, . . . no reasonable person, aware of the essential
    facts known to, or readily ascertainable by [Mr. Lentz],
    could believe he was disclosing a violation by his supervisor
    of his due process rights, or of any other law, rule or regu-
    lation,” 
    id.
     Mr. Lentz also failed, the AJ reasoned, to show
    that he had a right to display the quotation or that R.C.W.
    had achieved some personal gain or advantage through the
    removal, so there was no support for a reasonable belief
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 5    Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                          5
    “that his supervisor’s actions constituted an abuse of au-
    thority.” 
    Id.
    The AJ next addressed Mr. Lentz’s second relied-on
    disclosure—his statement that R.C.W. had authorized him
    to sign a goat-grazing permit, but then lied about doing so
    afterwards. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 19–26. The AJ found that Mr.
    Lentz did not prove that he reasonably believed that
    R.C.W. had orally authorized him to sign the permit. 
    Id.,
    SAppx. 24–26. Mr. Lentz had previously gone through the
    process necessary for getting National Environmental Pol-
    icy Act (NEPA) documentation approved and signed by the
    requisite authorities; as a result, he knew that the ap-
    proval process required multiple signatures, including
    from J.M. and R.C.W., and that he could not approve the
    goat-grazing project without completed and signed docu-
    mentation. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 24–25. Yet Mr. Lentz signed off on
    the project without ever completing the paperwork or get-
    ting his supervisors’ signatures. 
    Id.
     It was “inherently im-
    probable that” he “would have requested verbal
    authorization from his supervisor for the . . . project, when
    he . . . knew he had not completed or obtained the neces-
    sary signatures on the required NEPA documentation,”
    and it was “equally improbable that R.C.W. would have
    ever verbally authorized such a project knowing that the
    NEPA documentation had not yet been completed.” 
    Id.,
    SAppx. 25 & n.14. Nor did the AJ find credible Mr. Lentz’s
    “apparent claim that another [environmental assessment]
    prepared for a cattle grazing project at a different site and
    time period could be used for the goat grazing project” to
    eliminate the need for new documentation and approval for
    the new project. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 26 n.15.
    Mr. Lentz’s claim of oral authorization was also “con-
    tradicted by the written record.” 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 25. His acting
    supervisor informed him by email that the documentation
    needed further revisions; and after R.C.W. emailed Mr.
    Lentz to request a signed assessment for the project, Mr.
    Lentz acknowledged that he was still working on it. 
    Id.,
    Case: 22-2009     Document: 16      Page: 6    Filed: 11/04/2022
    6                                            LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    SAppx. 25–26. Mr. Lentz also supplied few “details of his
    alleged conversation.” 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 26. In sum, Mr. Lentz’s
    “claim that he ever sought or received verbal approval” was
    “incredible,” and Mr. Lentz “failed to set forth specific facts
    demonstrating that he had a reasonable belief that his su-
    pervisor lied.” 
    Id.
    The AJ then rejected Mr. Lentz’s assertion that he rea-
    sonably believed that R.C.W. was lying when she said that
    she did not know about his hiring of a new intern for the
    Chicago Botanical Garden. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 27–31. Mr. Lentz
    sent emails to R.C.W. and other supervisors referring to an
    intern “that he would soon be mentoring,” but none of the
    communications provided specific details, e.g., whether he
    had obtained supervisory approval. 
    Id.,
     SAppx. 29. Mr.
    Lentz’s alleged disclosure was thus too “vague and conclu-
    sory” to be protected, as “he failed to specify what [R.C.W.]
    allegedly knew or what she was claiming that she did not
    know about the hiring,” nor did he “explain how he was
    even aware of what R.C.W. was saying about the hiring of
    the interns or to whom she was making these statements.”
    
    Id.
     As a result, the AJ found that Mr. Lentz “failed to prove
    by preponderant evidence that his disclosure was one that
    a reasonable person would believe evidenced a violation by
    his supervisor of any law, rule or regulation” or “consti-
    tuted an arbitrary or capricious exercise of power that ad-
    versely affect[ed]” his rights to her advantage. 
    Id.,
     SAppx.
    30–31.
    C
    Mr. Lentz then filed a petition for review to the full
    Board, which, on June 30, 2022, denied the petition and
    affirmed the AJ’s initial decision in relevant part. Board
    Op. at *1, 8. As for the first disclosure, the confiscation of
    the Gatsby-quote sheet of paper, the Board described Mr.
    Lentz as arguing to the full Board only “that the adminis-
    trative judge’s decision . . . failed to address the taking of
    his property and his Fifth Amendment right to due
    Case: 22-2009     Document: 16     Page: 7    Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                           7
    process.” 
    Id. at *4
    . But the Board concluded that “the ad-
    ministrative judge addressed [Mr. Lentz’s] due process ar-
    gument and correctly found that [he had] failed to prove by
    preponderant evidence that he reasonably believed that he
    had a protected property interest in the piece of paper
    taped to the back of his chair.” 
    Id.
     “Similarly, while [Mr.
    Lentz] does not specifically argue that the [AJ] failed to ad-
    dress his abuse of authority argument concerning this dis-
    closure,” the Board added, the AJ had rejected that
    argument, and the Board found “no basis upon which to
    disturb” that rejection. 
    Id.
    As for the remaining disclosures—that R.C.W. deliber-
    ately and falsely denied that she had authorized Mr. Lentz
    to sign off on a goat-grazing permit and that she knew of
    Mr. Lentz’s hiring of a new intern—the Board “reach[ed]
    the same ultimate finding as did the administrative judge.”
    
    Id. at *5
    . The Board found that Mr. Lentz “(1) previously
    had followed the process to obtain the necessary approval
    for the goat grazing program; (2) did not obtain the re-
    quired supervisors’ signatures for the authorization at is-
    sue here; and (3) was not credible in claiming that he
    requested and received prior verbal authorization,” and he
    “was contradicted by the written record” too. 
    Id.
     Addition-
    ally, “he failed to provide the details of the conversation in
    which he allegedly received verbal authorization,” render-
    ing the “disclosure both vague and conclusory” and thus not
    protected. 
    Id.
     As a result, Mr. Lentz failed to prove that a
    reasonable person would have believed his disclosures evi-
    denced an abuse of authority or violation of law. 
    Id.
    The Board’s decision became final on June 30, 2022, 
    id. at *1
    ; SAppx. 39, and Mr. Lentz filed a petition for review
    on July 11, 2022, ECF No. 1, within the sixty days permit-
    ted by 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1295
    (a)(9).
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 8    Filed: 11/04/2022
    8                                           LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    II
    We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) ar-
    bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
    in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
    quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
    (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”           
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (c). Under the substantial-evidence standard, the
    Board’s findings of fact need only be “supported by such
    relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ad-
    equate to support a conclusion.” Gallagher v. Department
    of Treasury, 
    274 F.3d 1331
    , 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation
    omitted). “As an appellate court,” we broadly accept the
    Board’s “credibility determinations” where they are not “in-
    herently improbable or discredited by undisputed fact.”
    Pope v. United States Postal Service, 
    114 F.3d 1144
    , 1149
    (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see Kahn v. Department
    of Justice, 
    618 F.3d 1306
    , 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 2
    To establish the Board’s jurisdiction over a WEPA
    claim, a plaintiff must “exhaust[] his administrative reme-
    dies before the [Office] and make[] ‘non-frivolous allega-
    tions’ that (1) he engaged in whistleblowing activity by
    2   Because the Board denied Mr. Lentz’s petition for
    review and affirmed the AJ’s initial decision in all parts
    relevant to the present appeal, see Board Op. at *1, we
    treat the AJ’s decision—including the AJ’s undisturbed fac-
    tual findings—as the Board’s decision, see Snyder v. Office
    of Personnel Management, 
    463 F.3d 1338
    , 1340 (Fed. Cir.
    2006) (“The administrative judge’s initial decision became
    the final decision of the Board after the Board denied the
    petition for review.”); O’Neill v. Department of Housing &
    Urban Development, 
    220 F.3d 1354
    , 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
    (same), and we hereafter refer to the relevant portions of
    the AJ’s decision as the Board’s decision, cf. Mouton-Miller
    v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 
    985 F.3d 864
    , 866 n.1
    (Fed. Cir. 2021).
    Case: 22-2009     Document: 16      Page: 9    Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                            9
    making a protected disclosure . . . and (2) the disclosure
    was a contributing factor in the agency’s decision.” Yunus
    v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 
    242 F.3d 1367
    , 1371
    (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). After establishing ju-
    risdiction, the plaintiff “must prove by a preponderance of
    the evidence that he . . . made a protected disclosure under
    
    5 U.S.C. § 2302
    (b)(8) that was a contributing factor to the”
    agency’s action. Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 
    680 F.3d 1353
    , 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Under § 2302(b)(8), a pro-
    tected disclosure is one that the plaintiff “reasonably be-
    lieves evidences . . . any violation of any law, rule, or
    regulation, or . . . an abuse of authority.” A belief’s reason-
    ableness is based on whether “a disinterested observer
    with knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily
    ascertainable by the [plaintiff] [could] reasonably conclude
    that the actions of the government evidence” a violation or
    abuse of authority. Lachance v. White, 
    174 F.3d 1378
    , 1381
    (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    We cannot “reweigh evidence on appeal.” Jones v. De-
    partment of Health & Human Services, 
    834 F.3d 1361
    , 1369
    (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). The substantial-evi-
    dence standard requires only that the evidence make a
    Board finding reasonable, even if a contrary finding would
    also be reasonable. See American Textile Manufacturers
    Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 
    452 U.S. 490
    , 523 (1981); Con-
    solo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 
    383 U.S. 607
    , 620
    (1966); Carroll v. Department of Health & Human Services,
    
    703 F.2d 1388
    , 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
    A
    We first address Mr. Lentz’s “bifurcation” argument—
    that the Board improperly decided this appeal separately
    from other appeals he had before the Board—in particular,
    a set of appeals that were back before the Board (in consol-
    idated form) after we remanded them in Lentz v. Merit Sys-
    tems Protection Board, 
    876 F.3d 1380
     (Fed. Cir. 2017),
    along with two other appeals with which those remanded
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 10     Filed: 11/04/2022
    10                                           LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    appeals were consolidated in 2022, see Appx. 2. But the
    government asserts that Mr. Lentz never presented any ar-
    guments regarding consolidation or bifurcation to the
    Board, see Resp. Br. 24–25, and Mr. Lentz identifies noth-
    ing to the contrary. He has thus forfeited this argument.
    See Bosley v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 
    162 F.3d 665
    ,
    668 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A party in an MSPB proceeding must
    raise an issue before the administrative judge if the issue
    is to be preserved for review in this court.”); see also Sistek
    v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 
    955 F.3d 948
    , 953 n.1
    (Fed. Cir. 2020) (same).
    In any event, Mr. Lentz’s argument lacks merit. He
    relies on this court’s decision in 2017 reversing the Board’s
    splitting of what he had brought as a single appeal into two
    related and overlapping cases, where that splitting preju-
    diced a full adjudication of the relevant claim. Lentz, 876
    F.3d at 1382, 1386. Here, in contrast, Mr. Lentz brought
    separate appeals in the first place. And not only did he not
    ask the Board for consolidation of the present appeal with
    those remanded in 2017 (and the two additional appeals
    with which they were later consolidated), but he has not
    shown the kind of prejudice or comparable harm that
    would justify overriding the Board’s exercise of its “broad
    discretion to control its own docket” and “substitut[ing] our
    judgment for that of the [B]oard in this regard.” Olivares
    v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 
    17 F.3d 386
    , 388 (Fed.
    Cir. 1994).
    Mr. Lentz’s assertion that a lack of consolidation would
    prevent consideration of the totality of the evidence, see
    Petr. Opening Br. 3–5, is also unavailing. The appeals we
    remanded in 2017 address Mr. Lentz’s claims regarding his
    resignation, see Lentz, 876 F.3d at 1386 (reversing the
    Board’s bifurcation because both cases dealt with “involun-
    tary resignation based on alleged coercive agency actions”);
    accord Appx. 2, 9–11 (consolidating the four appeals be-
    cause all “involve the underlying allegations identified by
    the court that are relevant to the issue of the voluntariness
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 11    Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                          11
    of [Mr. Lentz’s] resignation”), whereas this appeal focuses
    on alleged whistleblower retaliation that occurred prior to
    his resignation. Some overlap in documentary evidence
    does not require Board consolidation of proceedings con-
    cerned with different asserted wrongs. Mr. Lentz identifies
    no reason that, even without consolidation, he could not in-
    troduce here all relevant evidence, including evidence that
    might also appear in his other Board appeals.
    B
    Mr. Lentz challenges the Board’s findings that he
    failed to show that his disclosures were protected. These
    arguments fall short, as substantial evidence supports
    each challenged finding.
    1
    First, regarding Mr. Lentz’s disclosure that R.C.W. had
    “removed a copy of a literary quotation from [his] work-
    space,” Mr. Lentz here challenges “[t]he Board’s finding
    that [he] did not reasonably believe that [he] had a pro-
    tected property interest in the piece of paper . . . and . . .
    did not make a disclosure that a reasonable person would
    believe evidenced a violation by his supervisor of any law,
    rule or regulation.” Petr. Opening Br. 5. Just as the
    Board’s opinion reflects the absence of an argument from
    Mr. Lentz based on the First Amendment once the AJ had
    rejected that argument, see Board Op. at *3–4, in this court
    Mr. Lentz bases his argument about this disclosure only on
    the alleged reasonable belief in a due process deprivation—
    specifically on the alleged reasonable belief in the thresh-
    old element of a property interest in the piece of paper that
    R.C.W. removed from his desk chair.
    But the Board reasonably determined that he had
    simply failed to demonstrate that it was reasonable to be-
    lieve in such a property interest in the circumstances here.
    This determination was a finding of a critical gap in proof.
    The Board’s elaboration was abbreviated because, as far as
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 12     Filed: 11/04/2022
    12                                           LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    we have been shown, Mr. Lentz supplied so few facts about
    the paper and its origin. The record before us does not es-
    tablish that this piece of paper was anything but a govern-
    ment-supplied sheet of paper on which a famous quotation,
    fetched or typed using a government-owned computer, was
    printed on a government-owned printer (and could readily
    be again). The record also does not establish that the re-
    moval was more than temporary: Indeed, Mr. Lentz sug-
    gests that it may have been only for a few weeks, saying
    that an Employee Relations Specialist at BLM “ordered the
    literary quote returned to [him].” Petr. Opening Br. 6; see
    Board Op. at *4.
    Mr. Lentz’s effort to fill the gap identified by the Board
    is not persuasive. He points to two BLM managers—the
    just-mentioned Specialist and one other—who thought
    that R.C.W. should “return the quote” and “[l]et him repost
    it,” or that R.C.W. “was wrong to” have taken it. Petr.
    Opening Br. 6 (citations and emphases omitted). Those
    views, which could easily reflect views of sound workplace
    policy, and subjective views at that, do not entail a legal
    conclusion about an objectively reasonable belief in a con-
    stitutional “property interest.” Cf. Lachance, 
    174 F.3d at 1381
     (“A purely subjective perspective of an employee is not
    sufficient even if shared by other employees.”). When Mr.
    Lentz notes that “every state most likely has laws prohib-
    iting the willful destruction or taking of someone else’s
    property,” and that “most kindergartners understand that
    taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong,”
    Petr. Opening Br. 5, he is assuming, not establishing, a
    property interest.
    We cannot say that the Board reversibly erred in find-
    ing Mr. Lentz not to have met his burden of showing a rea-
    sonable belief in a constitutionally protected property
    interest, let alone in a deprivation without due process. We
    therefore affirm the Board’s decision as to Mr. Lentz’s first
    disclosure.
    Case: 22-2009     Document: 16      Page: 13     Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                             13
    2
    Mr. Lentz next challenges the Board’s “determination
    that [he] did not reasonabl[y] believe the portion of [his] . . .
    disclosure regarding [his] notifying [J.M.]” that R.C.W.
    made “false statements regarding her knowledge of the
    goat grazing matter.” Id. at 7. To accept this challenge, we
    would have to reweigh the evidence on appeal, which we
    cannot do. See Jones, 834 F.3d at 1369.
    Mr. Lentz cites various documents drawn up by his su-
    pervisors to establish that he subjectively believed that he
    had met with R.C.W. See Petr. Opening Br. 9. He further
    cites the goat-grazing contract, as well as his supervisors’
    records of their conversations with him, to show that he
    subjectively believed that the project would be encom-
    passed by “the existing NEPA document.” Id. at 10–11.
    But this evidence does not show that the Board’s determi-
    nations are unreasonable on the evidence. Even if Mr.
    Lentz believed that he had met with R.C.W., his evidence
    does not establish the reasonableness of his belief that
    R.C.W. had orally given him authorization at that meeting;
    likewise, even if these documents show that Mr. Lentz sub-
    jectively believed that he was authorized to sign off on the
    contract, they do not establish the objective reasonableness
    of that belief. The Board gave ample reasons for finding
    that any belief in oral authorization in the circumstances
    of this project was simply unreasonable. See AJ Op.,
    SAppx. 19–26; Board Op. at *5.
    Mr. Lentz further faults the Board for relying on “in-
    teractions of others where [he] was not a party to the con-
    versation” and “communications that took place after” his
    alleged meeting with R.C.W., stating that such evidence is
    “not relevant for determining [his] reasonable belief.” Petr.
    Opening Br. 12–13. But such evidence is clearly relevant
    to whether his beliefs about oral authorization were rea-
    sonable—and, therefore, indirectly relevant to whether to
    credit his assertions that he actually held such beliefs. The
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16      Page: 14     Filed: 11/04/2022
    14                                           LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    Board reasonably found that it was not credible that Mr.
    Lentz, who had gone through the NEPA authorization pro-
    cess before, believed that oral authorization—without com-
    pletion of documents and signature by supervisors—would
    have sufficed; nor was it credible that R.C.W. provided him
    oral authorization when she too knew the necessity of com-
    pleting and signing all the paperwork. See Board Op. at
    *5; AJ Op., SAppx. 24–26 & nn.14–15; cf. Petr. Opening Br.
    14 (acknowledging that he possessed “expertise in these
    matters,” that his position description required
    “[k]nowledge and understanding of . . . NEPA,” and that he
    “was a ‘core member of the Interdisciplinary Review Team
    . . . for NEPA compliance of all projects’” (citations and em-
    phases omitted)).
    The Board also reasonably found that the written rec-
    ord, even if it post-dates the alleged meeting, further un-
    dermines Mr. Lentz’s assertions. See, e.g., AJ Op., SAppx.
    21 (noting that when R.C.W. emailed Mr. Lentz more than
    a week after their purported meeting, “stating that she did
    not see a signed [assessment] for the goat grazing in the
    files and ask[ing] if he had it[,] [i]n his email response that
    same day, [Mr. Lentz] did not state that he had a signed
    [assessment] for this project[,] nor did he state that R.C.W.
    had authorized it either verbally or in writing” (citations
    omitted)); id., SAppx. 25 (noting that R.C.W. never ratified
    or otherwise confirmed her alleged prior authorization by
    later “sign[ing] off on . . . [the] NEPA documentation for the
    goat grazing project”); id., SAppx. 22 (noting that, after the
    purported meeting, R.C.W. (1) asked if the project “was cov-
    ered by an existing authorization” (indicating that Mr.
    Lentz had not previously informed her that he thought it
    was); (2) requested that he “stop by to discuss the matter”
    (indicating that they had not previously done so); and (3)
    informed him that the paperwork was “inadequate” and
    “insufficient” after they met and reviewed it (indicating
    that she had not previously reviewed it or authorized him
    Case: 22-2009     Document: 16      Page: 15     Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                             15
    to proceed with the project with the paperwork in that
    state)).
    As a result, the Board had a sufficient basis for its de-
    termination that no reasonable person would have viewed
    Mr. Lentz’s disclosure as identifying a violation of any law
    or an abuse of discretion. See Carroll, 
    703 F.2d at 1390
    .
    We therefore affirm the Board’s decision as to this disclo-
    sure.
    3
    Finally, we reject Mr. Lentz’s challenge to the Board’s
    finding that his intern-related disclosure was too vague
    and conclusory to be protected. Mr. Lentz maintains that
    because he emailed R.C.W. to inform her that he “will soon
    be mentoring another contract employee,” and she was in-
    volved with and aware of his efforts to fill the position, he
    reasonably believed that she was lying when she said that
    she did not know about the intern, so the Board erred in
    finding otherwise. Petr. Opening Br. 16–17 (emphasis
    omitted). Mr. Lentz further maintains that the Board er-
    roneously focused on “how much specific detail [R.C.W.]
    had” and thereby “moved the goalposts,” as the issue is
    “whether [R.C.W.] had any information.” Id. at 16 (empha-
    sis added). These arguments do not justify disturbing the
    Board’s findings.
    In the reprimand letter, J.M. noted that R.C.W. “first
    learned of the specific hiring details of the new [intern]”
    only days before the intern was to start, even though em-
    ployees must “get approval from their supervisor and from
    the Field Manager before bringing on new interns.” AJ
    Op., SAppx. 27–29 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
    Mr. Lentz afterwards asserted that “Ms. [R.C.W.] knew
    about the hiring of the [intern],” “that she lied to [J.M.]
    about not knowing about it” (or that “she was intentionally
    forgetting . . . about [his] decision to hire the [intern]”), and
    that R.C.W. “intentionally deceiv[ed] [J.M.].” Id., SAppx.
    Case: 22-2009     Document: 16      Page: 16     Filed: 11/04/2022
    16                                            LENTZ V. INTERIOR
    27 (first alteration in original). There is a material sub-
    stantive gap between what R.C.W. said she did not know
    and what Mr. Lentz, in his accusation of lying, asserts that
    she knew.
    Because of that gap, the Board reasonably determined
    that a reasonable person, knowing everything that Mr.
    Lentz knew or that was readily ascertainable by him,
    would not believe that R.C.W. had lied. Mr. Lentz asserts
    only that she “knew” that he would “soon be mentoring an-
    other contract employee,” and that “[he] had been trying to
    fill the . . . position for a few months.” Petr. Opening Br.
    17 (emphasis omitted). But the Board reasonably deter-
    mined that this evidence does not establish that she knew
    any specifics about the hiring of that intern. See AJ Op.,
    SAppx. 29–30 (“[Mr. Lentz] had emailed R.C.W. . . . but
    had provided no details, including when the intern would
    start, who he had consulted about the hiring, whether su-
    pervisory approval had been obtained or whether funding
    was available. . . . [Mr. Lentz] gave the name of the intern
    [to another supervisor],” who forwarded the email to
    R.C.W. later that day, “but provided no other infor-
    mation. . . . [Mr. Lentz] provided no information to R.C.W.
    directly about the hiring other than that he anticipated he
    would soon be mentoring a new intern.” (citations omit-
    ted)). Therefore, a reasonable observer would not believe
    that her statement that she did not know “specific hiring
    details” was untruthful. Id., SAppx. 27.
    The Board also determined that Mr. Lentz provided no
    evidence establishing his knowledge of precisely what
    statements R.C.W. made and to whom, an apparent predi-
    cate to an accusation of lying. See id., SAppx. 29 (“I find no
    evidence that [Mr. Lentz] ever provided any supporting
    documentation to J.M. concerning his allegation, although
    she requested that he do so . . . .”); id. (“[H]e failed to spec-
    ify what she allegedly knew or what she was claiming that
    she did not know about the hiring. He also fails to explain
    Case: 22-2009    Document: 16        Page: 17   Filed: 11/04/2022
    LENTZ V. INTERIOR                                           17
    how he was even aware of what R.C.W. was saying about
    the hiring of the interns or to whom she was making these
    statements.”). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s
    finding that his disclosure was too “vague and conclusory”
    to be protected, id.; Board Op. at *8, in addition to its find-
    ing that he failed to show “that his disclosure was one that
    a reasonable person would believe evidenced a violation,”
    AJ Op., SAppx. 30. As a result, we affirm the Board’s de-
    cision as to the intern-related disclosure.
    III
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the
    Board.
    The parties shall bear their own costs.
    AFFIRMED