“We first describe Dr. Tao’s sixteen allegations, and as to each, the AJ’s ruling, and the position on review of the Board and OSC. . . .
We reverse the AJ as to items (2), (3), (5)–(8), and (10), agree with the Board that they at least in part allege protected activities and disclosures over which the Board has jurisdiction, and remand for further proceedings. Our reversal is limited to the parts of these items as to which the Board has conceded the AJ erred or likely erred. As to the parts of these items that the Board has not conceded, we vacate and remand for the Board to reconsider or consider in the first instance.
The Board takes no position on items (1), and (4) which the AJ did address in his ruling, and (12), which the AJ appears to have addressed at least in part, or items (9), (11), and (13)–(16), which the AJ did not address. We remand these aspects of Dr. Tao’s claim for the Board to reconsider or consider in the first instance.”