action plan to improve the organization of the garrison; (2) the organizational chart provided to the CCRB by Kim Santiago (Crockett’s immediate supervisor) was so “flawed” as to be misleading; (3) “the cost to RBC of the existing structure is the second lowest of all business centers”; and (4) the decision to establish cells in the RBC might necessitate a reduction in force that would not result in cost savings to the Agency. Crockett, Docket No. CH-1221-00-0400-W-1, slip op. at 4-10 (M.S.P.B. Apr.11, 2001). The AJ concluded generally that even if the individual concerns in the first disclosure had covered subject matter arguably within the WPA, they still would not constitute protected disclosures under: (1) Willis v. Department of Agriculture, 141 F.3d 1139, 1143 (Fed. Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); and (2) Horton v. Department of the Navy, 66
holding that a period of paid leave does not qualify as a suspension holding negligence on the part of the attorney does not qualify for such relief holding that communications must go to persons in a position to correct the alleged abuse in order to qualify as protected disclosures and therefore djiscussion and even disagreement with supervisors over jobrelated activities do not qualify as they are a normal part of most occupations holding that money damages do not qualify as equitable relief within the meaning of  1132a3 holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment