at a DVA facility could not be verified and that Mr. Gomez had not requested leave through a leave-approving official. Therefore, the administrative judge’s determination that Mr. Gomez failed to prove that he did not violate the LCA is supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Gomez has also failed to point to any evidence to support his contention that his acceptance of the LCA was involuntary. Mr. Gomez argues that the LCA was issued as an ultimatum and that he was coerced into signing the LCA based on the threat of termination if he failed to sign. However, a decision to sign a last-chance agreement is not coerced just because an employee faces the unpleasant alternatives of signing the agreement or being removed. See Stoats v. U.S. Postal Serv., 99 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The LCA itself states that the agreement was
holding that an employees choice may be voluntary even when limited to two unattractive options holding such intoxication to be voluntary holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant holding that the court must determine whether the employees consent to the settlement agreement was knowing and voluntary holding individual employees may be liable under title vii