1. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s December 2016 disclosure to his supervisors about the lack of probable cause for a search warrant was not protected, when that disclosure involved a violation of law, notably the Constitution, gross mismanagement, and a danger to public health or safety; and whether the Board particularly erred in not analyzing Besanceney’s reasonableness in his belief of the same.”
2. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s disclosure on April 12, 2017, was not protected, when he met with his supervisors and raised concerns about an investigation, which described violations of law and gross mismanagement.”
3. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s disclosure on September 11, 2017, was not protected, when he emailed a complaint to Investigations Division Deputy Director Bobo and Acting Assistant Administrator John Busch describing the mishandling of an investigation.”
4. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s disclosure on September 12, 2017, was not protected, when he forwarded his September 11, 2017, complaint to Investigations Division Business Management Office Director Susie Williams, again raising concerns of the mishandling of an investigation.”
5. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s disclosure on November 16, 2017, was not protected, when he disclosed Williams’s and Vasey’s mishandling of an investigation in his response to the Notice of Proposed Removal.”
6. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s disclosure on February 6, 2018, was not protected, when he alleged an assault, abuse, and potentially an illegal audio recording by his supervisor, Vasey, constituting a report of an abuse of authority.”
7. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s disclosure on February 12, 2018, was not protected, when he disclosed DSAIC Vasey’s alleged misconduct to INV’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU).”
8. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s disclosure on March 7, 2018, was not protected, when he disclosed DSAIC Vasey’s alleged misconduct to the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG).”
9. “Whether the Board erred in not considering the prohibited personnel practices taken against Besanceney by TSA or the causal link between those actions and his protected disclosures.”
10. “Whether the Board erred in not considering or analyzing whether TSA met its heavy burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions in the absence of Besanceney’s disclosures.”
