instead that Alston herself initiated her absence from work “by telling the agency that she would not be returning to work for an extended period of time” due to her illness and because she failed to give the agency the requested medical documentation. We disagree with the board’s reliance on Alston’s absence from work between April 11 and April 21 due to illness. The record clearly shows that Alston informed the agency that she would be absent for a specified period of time, not indefinitely. Contrary to Alston’s suggestion, however, the period from April 19 through May 17 is similarly irrelevant to the board’s jurisdiction because Alston was on paid administrative leave, which cannot qualify as a constructive suspension. See Henry v. Dep’t of Navy, 902 F.2d 949, 954 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Holloway v. United States Postal
holding that an attorneys negligence alone does not qualify for such relief holding that employee does not suffer adverse employment action when placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and citing cases holding that initial paid suspension of two weeks periodically extended to total 19 months while an internal investigation was conducted is not an adverse action because plaintiff cannot show objectively tangible harm resulting from paid leave 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