of whether he employee’s underlying conduct was criminal. Although the FBI suitability standards referred to by respondent do not include explicit guidance on whether an agent must behave honestly in all aspects of an agent’s life in order to remain employed, the FBI Employee Handbook states that high standards of conduct must be maintained “not only when they are engaged in their official duties but while off duty.” See also Ludlum v. Dep’t of Justice, 87 M.S.P.R. 56, ¶ 29 (2000), aff'd, 278 F.3d 1280 (Fed.Cir.2002) (the FBI has a right to hold its special agents to a high standard of conduct). It was this theory that the Board adopted in its December 4, 2007 decision when it sustained the FBI’s removal action. See Doe v. Dep’t of Justice, CH-0752-04-0620-B-1, 107 M.S.P.R. 397 (<HOLDING>). We think that the Board’s decision cannot be
holding that clearly dishonest conduct is sufficient to trigger investigation and ultimately justify a decision to remove a special agent holding that a  mere allegation that the petitioner would have insisted on trial but for his counsels errors  is ultimately insufficient to justify relief holding that employer was entitled to summary judgment even if it conducted a shoddy investigation and subsequently made a poorly informed decision to fire plaintiff so long as there was no evidence that it was  discriminatory animus that motivated the decision to conduct the investigation and terminate plaintiffs employment holding that allegations of inaccurate information are sufficient to trigger advisement requirement holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights