Comment from Anonymous

I respectfully oppose significant portions of the proposed rule. I support accountability for misconduct and unacceptable performance, but accountability must remain fair, consistent, transparent, and subject to meaningful review. The proposed rule would replace the Douglas Factors with an undefined "totality of the circumstances" standard. The Douglas Factors have guided federal discipline for decades by requiring agencies to consider the seriousness of the conduct, prior discipline, work history, length of service, notice, consistency of penalties, mitigating circumstances, rehabilitation, and alternative sanctions. These factors do not prevent discipline. They ensure that discipline is reasoned, consistent, and proportionate. Replacing them with a vague standard increases discretion while reducing objective safeguards. Employees performing similar work should not receive different penalties simply because they work for different supervisors or offices. The Douglas Factors are especially important because performance evaluations already involve significant supervisory judgment. Employees performing comparable work may receive different ratings depending on how supervisors interpret standards or document performance. In some workplaces, the highest ratings may appear more available to leadership or a small group of favored employees than to employees producing similar work. Whether or not that perception is accurate, it demonstrates why objective procedural safeguards remain necessary. Greater discretion without stronger safeguards increases the risk of inconsistent treatment and reduces confidence in the merit system. The proposed 30-calendar-day opportunity period is also inadequate for many federal positions. Occupations such as contracting, acquisition, engineering, science, healthcare, auditing, finance, law, and information technology often involve projects lasting months and depend on reviews, approvals, funding, customer actions, or other events outside the employee's control. Thirty calendar days may provide only about twenty working days and may not reflect a normal work cycle. Agencies should retain flexibility to provide a reasonable opportunity based on the complexity of the position. I also oppose the proposal to ordinarily require removal following an unsuccessful opportunity period. Under 5 U.S.C. § 4303, agencies may reduce an employee in grade or remove the employee. Regulations should preserve discretion to determine the most appropriate corrective action rather than making removal the expected starting point. The proposed response periods are too short. Employees facing suspension or removal may need time to review evidence, gather records, consult an attorney or union representative, identify witnesses, and prepare a meaningful response. Due process requires more than a technical opportunity to reply; it requires sufficient time to exercise that right effectively. The proposed medical waiver should also be withdrawn. Employees may not yet have a diagnosis, may be awaiting medical documentation, or may not realize a medical condition contributed to performance. A short response period should not result in forfeiture of relevant medical considerations. Taken together, these proposals would increase agency discretion while reducing long-standing safeguards that promote fairness, consistency, and accountability. They also risk increasing appeals and litigation by creating uncertainty over how disciplinary decisions will be made. I respectfully urge OPM and MSPB to retain the Douglas Factors, preserve reasonable performance improvement periods based on job complexity, reject presumptive removal, maintain meaningful response periods, eliminate the proposed medical-waiver provision, and continue protecting the Merit System Principles established by Congress in 5 U.S.C. § 2301. Federal employees should be held accountable, but accountability should be achieved through clear standards, consistent application, effective supervision, and objective review—not by weakening the safeguards that protect a merit-based civil service. Thank you for considering my comment.