Comment from David Gardner

I am a current federal employee and I submit this comment in my individual capacity. My views are my own and do not represent those of my employer or any federal agency. I oppose this proposed rule because it would make the federal employee disciplinary process less fair, less transparent, and less consistent. For decades, the existing framework has balanced agency accountability with basic due process protections for employees. Eliminating consideration of the Douglas factors removes an important safeguard that allows decision-makers to consider the individual circumstances of each case and to ensure that discipline is proportionate. A rigid approach is less likely to produce just outcomes and more likely to result in arbitrary or inconsistent disciplinary actions. I am also concerned by the proposal to limit performance improvement plans to 30 days, prohibit clean record settlement agreements, create a new voluntary abandonment standard, and reduce procedural protections, including the ability to have union representation during disciplinary proceedings. These changes appear arbitrary and could disproportionately harm employees with disabilities, those experiencing medical or family emergencies, and employees who would otherwise benefit from reasonable opportunities to improve performance or resolve disputes without unnecessary litigation. An effective civil service depends on both accountability and fairness. Employees who face discipline should have access to a transparent process, meaningful opportunities to respond, and procedures that recognize the unique facts of each case. The longstanding legal framework has provided those protections while still allowing agencies to address misconduct and poor performance. For these reasons, I urge OPM and MSPB to withdraw the proposed rule and preserve the procedural protections that have promoted fairness, consistency, and public confidence in the federal civil service for decades.