The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision to sustain the removal of Terry Burl Smith Jr., a Department of Veterans Affairs police officer who was terminated following a firearms incident at his residence.
In a nonprecedential decision issued Jan. 21, 2026, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board's final order in *Smith v. Department of Veterans Affairs* (Fed. Cir. 2026). The three-judge panel, consisting of Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judges Dyk and Taranto, issued a brief per curiam opinion affirming the lower tribunal's ruling.
Smith had served as a VA police officer in Chicago for more than seven years before the incident that led to his termination. According to court documents, Chicago Police responded to a report of 17 rounds being fired from Smith's residence where he was hosting a party. When officers arrived, they found Smith standing near spent shell casings.
Smith admitted to police that he was in possession of a firearm and had fired the weapon. The Chicago Police arrested Smith and charged him with Reckless Discharge of a Firearm, a Class 4 felony under Illinois law.
Following Smith's arrest, the VA immediately suspended his arrest authority pending the agency's internal investigation and the outcome of his state court case. This suspension effectively removed Smith's law enforcement powers while maintaining his employment status during the review process.
In the subsequent state court proceedings, Smith entered a guilty plea to the reduced charge of Reckless Conduct. The court sentenced him to pay court fees and fines and serve a two-year probation period. The plea agreement allowed Smith to avoid conviction on the original felony charge.
Despite the reduced charges, the VA proceeded with its own disciplinary action based on its investigation into the incident. The agency determined that Smith's conduct warranted removal from his position as a VA police officer. The VA's decision reflected the heightened standards of conduct expected of federal law enforcement personnel, particularly those responsible for security at veterans' healthcare facilities.
Smith challenged his termination through the Merit Systems Protection Board, the federal agency that handles appeals of personnel actions against federal employees. The Board conducts administrative hearings to determine whether federal agencies have proper cause for disciplinary actions, including removals.
The Merit Systems Protection Board issued an initial decision sustaining Smith's removal from the VA. Smith then appealed that decision to the Board itself, which affirmed the initial ruling in a final order. This exhausted his administrative remedies within the MSPB system.
Representing himself pro se, Smith then petitioned the Federal Circuit for review of the Board's final decision. The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from Merit Systems Protection Board decisions involving federal employment matters.
The Department of Justice represented the VA in the Federal Circuit proceedings. The government's legal team included Laurel Don Havens III from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division, along with attorneys Albert S. Iarossi, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brett Shumate.
In its brief per curiam opinion, the Federal Circuit found no error in the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision to sustain Smith's removal. The court's affirmance suggests that both the Board and the reviewing court found the VA had sufficient justification for terminating Smith based on his conduct.
The case highlights the strict standards applied to federal law enforcement personnel, particularly those working in sensitive environments such as VA medical facilities. VA police officers are responsible for protecting veterans, patients, staff, and visitors at healthcare facilities nationwide. The agency maintains that officers in these positions must demonstrate the highest levels of professional conduct both on and off duty.
Federal employment law generally provides significant procedural protections for career federal employees facing disciplinary action. However, law enforcement personnel may face heightened scrutiny for off-duty conduct that could reflect poorly on their fitness for duty or the integrity of their employing agency.
The Federal Circuit's decision is marked as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. However, the ruling demonstrates the courts' general deference to agency determinations regarding the fitness of law enforcement personnel when supported by adequate evidence and proper procedures.
Smith's case represents one of numerous employment disputes that reach the federal appellate level each year involving the termination of federal employees. The Merit Systems Protection Board processes thousands of appeals annually, with only a small percentage ultimately reaching the Federal Circuit.
The case number 2025-1591 reflects the Federal Circuit's docket for cases filed in 2025, indicating Smith's petition was among the court's business for that term. The underlying Merit Systems Protection Board case number CH-0714-23-0143-I-1 suggests the initial Board proceeding began in 2023.
With the Federal Circuit's affirmance, Smith has exhausted his appeals options unless he seeks review from the Supreme Court, which would require the high court to grant certiorari. Given the case's nonprecedential status and fact-specific nature, further appellate review appears unlikely.