of a four-and-a-half year period, and for each step, the Government did not present a single email, memorandum, or personnel action form documenting or providing the bases for the agency’s action. Common sense tells us that these repeated reassignments, occurring over a significant span of time, are the types of personnel actions for which papers would normally attach. To be clear, we do not hold today that testimony must be corroborated to support a showing of independent causation, although that is one of potentially many ways that the Government could have made its weak evidentiary showing' stronger in this case. Likewise, we do not accept Mr. Miller’s invitation to view Warden Upton’s testimony as not credible. See Chambers v. Dep’t of Interior, 515 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). But even taking the Warden’s testimony at
holding that the credibility determinations by the board are virtually unreviewable holding the boards credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable at this level quoting hambsch v dept of treasury 796 f2d 430 436 fed cir 1986 holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that credibility determinations are reviewed only for substantial evidence holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage