Richard J. Griessenauer v. Dep't of Energy, 754 F.2d 361 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard J. Griessenauer v. Dep't of Energy, 754 F.2d 361 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 1990–2024 · 2 courts · …the determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor. at p. 364 ✓
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 · …inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed evidence or physical fact. at p. 364 ⚠ not in text
177 citation events (41 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gilmore v. United States Postal Service (cafc, 2004-07-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gilmore v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chu v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 2026 · confidence medium
Cir. 1993) (citing Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alarid v. Army
Fed. Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
But the crediting of the agency witnesses in this case reflected the AJ’s demeanor assessment, and we have held that “[t]he determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor.” Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bowe-Connor v. DVA
Fed. Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Cir. 1985); Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Credibility determinations are largely unreviewable, Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), and Evans has provided no basis for overturning the Board’s credibility determinations.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wyrick v. Department of Transportation
Fed. Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor.” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vick v. Department of Transportation
Fed. Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
“The determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor.” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ebron v. Department of Homeland Security
Fed. Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
“The determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor.” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2011 · confidence medium
Bd., 519 F.3d 1328, 1335 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“[A] choice is not involuntary simply because an employee is faced with an inherently unpleasant situation or his choice is limited to two unpleasant alternatives.” (quoting Terban v. Dep’t of Energy, 216 F.3d 1021, 1026 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Cir. 2000) (citing Covington v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 750 F.2d at 942 ))); Dorrall v. Dep’t of the Army, 301 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed.Cir. 2002); Schultz v. United States Navy, 810 F.2d 1133, 1136-37 (Fed.Cir.1987); Sammt v. United States, 780 F.2d at 32 (“[T]he exercise of an option t…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harrison v. Department of Agriculture
Fed. Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mancini v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Fed. Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144, 1149 (Fed.Cir.1997); Hambsch v. Dep’t of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986); DeSarno v. Dep’t of Commerce, 761 F.2d 657, 661 (Fed.Cir.1985); Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stipe v. SHINSEKI
E.D. Mo. · 2010 · confidence medium
Crawford , at 1341 citing Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Washington Int'l Ins. Co. v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2010 · confidence medium
Cir. 1985); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Washington International Insurance v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2010 · confidence medium
Cir. 1985); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
The district court’s fourth and fifth findings regarding intent are based on the district court’s assessment of witness credibility. “[Djetermination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor,” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), such that a judge’s credibility determinations are “virtually unreviewable,” Hambsch v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guajardo v. Department of Homeland Security
Fed. Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
“The determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor.” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Haight v. Department of Justice
Fed. Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
In that connection, the Board’s determinations regarding witness credibility are “virtually unreviewable,” Hambsch v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986), since the “determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor.” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McBeth v. Social Security Administration
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Although it would have been more helpful to this court if the AJ had discussed the Hillen factors 4 and provided specific reasons for why he credited Stephens’ testimony over that of McBeth, this court accords great deference to the AJ’s credibility determinations, Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), unless they are “inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed evidence or physical fact,” Hanratty v. Dep’t of Transp., 819 F.2d 286, 288 (Fed.Cir.1987) (internal citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Department of Homeland Security
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gaddy v. Department of the Navy
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
See DeSarno v. Department of Commerce, 761 F.2d 657, 661 (Fed.Cir.1985); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alley v. Department of Energy
Fed. Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Furthermore, it is within the administrative judge’s discretion to determine the credibility of testifying witnesses, Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), and those determinations are virtually unreviewable, Hambsch v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hendrickson v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Fed. Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
However, “determination of the credibility of witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor,” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), and an administrative judge’s credibility determinations are “virtually unreviewable,” Hambsch v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schoenrogge v. Department of Justice
Fed. Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Hambsch v. Dep’t of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986) (citing DeSarno v. Dep’t of Commerce, 761 F.2d 657, 661 (Fed.Cir.1985); Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985); Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)) (commenting that, given the highly deferential standard for reviewing a deciding official’s credibility determination, such determinations are “virtually unreviewable” on appeal).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hicks v. Department of the Treasury
Fed. Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
This court’s precedent is clear that credibility determinations are the province of the official who heard the witnesses’ testimony and saw their demeanor, Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), and “are virtually unreviewable” upon appeal, Hambsch v. Dep’t of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Colbert v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Indeed, this court has noted that “[t]he determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official.” Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gardner-Cook v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 2003 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985); Camery v. Sec’y DHHS, 42 Fed.Cl. at 390 (quoting Bradley v. Sec’y DHHS, 991 F.2d at 1575 ); Richardson v. Sec’y DHHS, 23 Cl.Ct. 674, 678 (1991); see also Burns v. Sec’y DHHS, 3 F.3d at 417 ; Snyder by Snyder v. Sec’y DHHS, 36 Fed.Cl. 461, 465 (1996), aff'd 117 F.3d 545 (1997); Horner v. Sec’y DHHS, 35 Fed.Cl. 23, 28 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dillon v. Department of Justice
Fed. Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
First, as the agency’s brief correctly points out, this court’s precedent is clear that credibility determinations are the province of the official who heard the witnesses’ testimony and saw their demeanor, Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Fed. Cir. · 2002 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 576 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), Hambsch v. Dept. of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986), Griessenauer v. Dept. of the Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander v. Office of Personnel Management
Fed. Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Determinations of the credibility of witnesses is the province of the official who heard the testimony and observed witness demeanor, see Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), and will not be disturbed unless “inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed evidence or physical fact.” Dittmore-Freimuth Corp. v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 507 , 390 F.2d 664, 685 (Ct.Cl.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas M. Wright v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Chauvin v. Department of Navy, 38 F.3d 563, 566 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“[T]he board must give special deference to the [administrative judge’s] factual findings that are based ... on the demeanor of a witness.”); DeSarno v. Department of Commerce, 761 F.2d 657, 661 (Fed.Cir.1985) (affirming presiding official’s credibility determinations because it was based on witnesses’ demeanor); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lampe v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 1998 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985); Richardson v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 23 Cl.Ct. 674, 678 (1991); see also Burns v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 3 F.3d at 417 ; Snyder v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 36 Fed.Cl. at 465 ; Horner v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 35 Fed.Cl. 23, 28 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hoag v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 1998 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Dep't of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985); Richardson v. Sec’y DHHS, 23 Cl.Ct. 674, 678 (1991); see also Burns v. Sec’y DHHS, 3 F.3d at 417 ; Snyder v. Sec’y DHHS, 36 Fed.Cl. at 465 ; Horner v. Sec’y DHHS, 35 Fed.Cl. 23, 28 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haggerty v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 1997 · confidence medium
A special master has “broad discretion in determining credibility because [s]he saw the witnesses and heard the testimony.” Bradley, 991 F.2d at 1575 (citing Griesse-nauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361,364 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shrader v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1997 · confidence medium
Moreover, in Bergman , the court noted that even “the probability of removal does not convert a voluntary resignation into an involuntary one.” Id. (citing Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Martin v. Department of Justice
Fed. Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Giles v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 1997 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985); Richardson v. Sec’y DHHS, 23 Cl.Ct. 674, 678 (1991); see also Burns v. Sec’y DHHS, 3 F.3d at 417 ; Snyder v. Sec’y DHHS, 36 Fed.Cl. 461, 465 (1996); Horner v. Sec’y DHHS, 35 Fed.Cl. 23, 28 (1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Russell N. Kell v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Fed. Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Linda L. Bunner v. Department of Defense
Fed. Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 363 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Epstein v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 1996 · confidence medium
Moreover, “[t]he fact-finder has broad discretion in determining credibility because he saw the witnesses and heard the testimony.” Bradley v. Sec’y DHHS, 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1993) (citing Griessenauer v. Dept. of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thornton v. Secretary of Dept. of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 1996 · confidence medium
A special master’s determinations regarding credibility are “virtually unreviewable.” Id. (citing to Hambsch v. Department of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986); Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Louise J. Hamlet v. United States
Fed. Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
In Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985), we found that a provision of the FPM, which stated that an employee’s resignation “should” be by written resignation, was prec-atory and not mandatory.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
Fed. Cl. · 1995 · confidence medium
Hambsch v. Dep’t of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986); Griessenauer v. Dep’t of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vincent G. Rogers v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Cir. 1987); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Samuel L. Lovett, Sr. v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Hambsch v. Department of the Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Dittmore-Freimuth Corp. v. United States, 390 F.2d 664, 685 (Ct.Cl.1968) (credibility determination will not be disturbed unless inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed evidence or physical act).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Margaret M. Sweeney v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Sweeney's arguments amount essentially to a challenge to the board's credibility determinations that, on appeal, are "virtually unreviewable." See Hambsch v. Department of the Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985) (determinations of credibility are within the discretion of officials who hear witnesses' testimony and observe the witnesses' demeanor).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Willie L. Grace v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Greissenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Catherine M. Etheridge v. Department of the Treasury
Fed. Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eric Crawford v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
8th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ruben Gutierrez v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See Hambsch v. Department of Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986); DeSarno v. Department of Commerce, 761 F.2d 657, 661 (Fed.Cir.1985); Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361, 364 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard J. GRIESSENAUER, Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent
Appeal 84-1291.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Feb 8, 1985.
754 F.2d 361
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 14773
Robert J. Slade, argued, Stockton, Cal., for petitioner., Ronald D. Schechter, argued, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. With him on brief were Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Thomas W. Petersen, Washington, D.C.
Friedman, Baldwin, Bissell.
Cited by 166 opinions  |  Published
FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the petitioner’s appeal from his resignation from federal employment. 20 M.S.P.R. 172[*363] The petitioner contended (1) that he had not in fact resigned, and (2) that any resignation of his was involuntary. The Board rejected both contentions and, because its jurisdiction over resignations is limited to involuntary ones, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We affirm and, since we conclude that the appeal is frivolous, assess costs and attorney’s fees against the petitioner and his attorney.

I

On June 1, 1982, the petitioner, an employee of the Bonneville Power Administration, made a telephone call to his supervisor, Mr. Miller. Prior thereto, the petitioner had been the subject of several disciplinary actions by his agency. During the preceding 4 months, Miller had several conversations with the petitioner “concerning his job performance” and in which Miller told him he “had to improve his performance and ‘[alternatively, he could become subject to removal or he could resign.’”

There was a sharp disagreement in the testimony before the presiding official over what was said in that telephone conversation. The presiding official stated that Mr. Miller testified that

[the petitioner] informed him that he had talked at length with his wife about his problems at Bonneville, and had decided to resign. According to Mr. Miller, [the petitioner] wanted to resign immediately so the processing of the return of his retirement monies could commence. [The petitioner] states that this conversation never took place and instead maintains that Mr. Miller informed him that he had already processed his “resignation” and there was nothing he could do to change the situation. (Emphasis in original.)

The presiding official discussed in detail the parties’ different versions of that conversation and other testimony relating to the petitioner’s resignation, as well as the factors relating to the credibility of the witnesses. After a full review of the evidence, the presiding official stated that “to believe” the petitioner’s “story,” the testimony of Miller and three other agency witnesses “would have to be inaccurate or an outright fabrication. I find no basis to make such a finding.” The presiding official then found:

After carefully viewing the demeanor of each witness during the hearing, I find Mr. Miller’s testimony credible concerning his telephone conversation with [the petitioner] on June 1, 1982. I also find that by [petitioner’s] own admission, Mr. Miller made efforts to help him ... and I do not credit [petitioner’s] theory that Mr. Miller processed his resignation in order to avoid going through the formal procedures of actually terminating [the petitioner].
Thus, based on the documents submitted, the testimony of all the witnesses, and the respective credibility of each of these witnesses, I find [the petitioner] orally resigned on June 1, 1982, and the effective date of his resignation was June 1, 1982. I also find that [the petitioner] subsequently tried to retract his resignation on June 1, 1982. However, since [petitioner’s] resignation was already effected, he could not revoke it at his option. (Record reference omitted.)

The Board granted a petition to review and affirmed the initial decision of the presiding official with one modification. The presiding official had concluded that the only question was whether the petitioner had resigned on June 1, 1982, and that the voluntariness of the resignation was not in issue. The Board held that voluntariness was an issue in the ease. It then ruled:

We further find, however, that [the petitioner] has not carried his burden of establishing that the resignation was involuntary. Although the record indicates that [petitioner’s] supervisor informed him that the agency would probably propose [petitioner’s] termination if he did not resign, this fact, standing alone does not constitute duress or coercion sufficient to render the resignation involuntary____ The fact that appellant was faced with two unpleasant alternatives does not make the action taken[*364] involuntary____ Thus, we conclude that the presiding official’s failure to rule on this issue did not prejudice appellant’s substantive rights and did not, therefore, constitute harmful adjudicatory error____ Therefore, we find no basis to disturb the presiding official’s finding that the resignation action was not within the Board’s jurisdiction. (Citations and record references omitted.)

II

In his appeal to this court, the petitioner challenges the Board’s decision on two grounds: (A) the Board improperly determined on the record that the petitioner voluntarily resigned on June 1, 1982; and (B) the Board failed to “give any weight” to the agency’s failure to comply with “certain rules set forth in the Federal Personnel Manual” dealing with resignations.

A. The determination of the credibility of the witnesses is within the discretion of the presiding official who heard their testimony and saw their demeanor. Brewer v. United States Postal Service, 227 Ct.Cl. 276, 647 F.2d 1093, 1096 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 102 S.Ct. 1005, 71 L.Ed.2d 296 (1982). Here the presiding official credited the testimony of the agency witnesses and rejected the conflicting testimony of the petitioner. That choice was one the presiding official was fully justified in making on this record. The petitioner has given no convincing reason for us to reject those credibility determinations, and we see no basis for doing so.

At oral argument, petitioner admitted that if we accept the presiding official’s credibility determinations, which we do, there is no basis for rejecting the Board’s finding that the petitioner voluntarily resigned on June 1, 1982. Moreover, as the Board pointed out, the fact that the petitioner was faced with the probability that the agency would remove him unless he resigned, did not make his resignation involuntary. See Christie v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 333, 518 F.2d 584, 589 (1975).

B. The petitioner argues that the Board improperly failed to give sufficient weight to provisions of the Federal Personnel Manual, which the agency did not follow, stating (1) that an employee who announces his resignation “should” be asked to submit a detailed written resignation; (2) that if an employee declines to submit a written resignation, the oral resignation should be accepted, “preferably” in the presence of witnesses, and that the official receiving the oral resignation “should” record and place in the employee’s personnel folder data concerning the resignation, together with any appropriate statements of the witnesses; and (3) whether the resignation is written or oral, reasons for it “should” be obtained whenever possible.

The presiding official held that “[tjhese guidelines suggest procedures to be utilized by an agency to effect a voluntary resignation,” and “are clearly precatory, not mandatory.” The Board agreed. At oral argument the petitioner himself admitted that these provisions are precatory.

The provisions are intended to aid government officials in handling resignations by suggesting procedures to be followed that will avoid or minimize subsequent disputes concerning the resignation and to strengthen the government’s case in any litigation regarding it. They do not create any rights in an employee, and the government’s failure to observe the suggestions does not provide a basis for challenging the government’s acceptance of an oral resignation.

Although at oral argument the petitioner contended that the government’s nonobservance of these provisions weakened the testimony of the agency witnesses, it provided no basis for that claim, and we cannot see any. The determination by the presiding official of which witness’s testimony to accept depended upon his evaluation of the witness’s credibility in light of all the evidence, not upon whether the government followed the suggestions in the Federal Personnel Manual for the preferred manner of handling resignations.

[*365] III

The utter lack of any merit to the petitioner’s arguments on appeal ineluctably leads to the conclusion that this appeal is frivolous.

As we recently reiterated, and have made clear to litigants and their attorneys, the prosecution of a frivolous appeal will result in the imposition of costs and attorney’s fees against the offending par- . ties and their attorneys. Moir v. Department of the Treasury, 754 F.2d 341 (1985). Accordingly, we assess costs and attorney’s fees of five hundred dollars ($500) in favor of the government, jointly and severally against Mr. Griessenauer and his attorney, Robert J. Slade.

AFFIRMED.