of his disclosures.” Id. The Board explained that Mr. Mizrach, the DVA official who removed Mr. Jones, was not implicated in any of the petitioner’s disclosures. Id. Moreover, the Board credited Mr. Mizrach’s testimony that he did not consider the disclosures in removing Mr. Jones. Id. The Board found that even though the petitioner was not removed until six months after the last incident of misconduct, the delay was attributable to failed mediation efforts initiated by the OSC. Id. The petitioner also raises numerous arguments generally challenging the credibility of the witness testimony relied upon by the Board. There has been no showing here that we should reject the Board’s assessment of witness credibility. See Hambsch v. Dep’t of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In light of the above, we hold that the
holding that the credibility determinations of hearing officers are afforded special deference holding that credibility determinations are reviewed only for substantial evidence holding that the credibility determinations by the board are virtually unreviewable holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding the boards credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable at this level quoting hambsch v dept of treasury 796 f2d 430 436 fed cir 1986