                                 3

     appellant did not have authorization to use the GOV that she drove to attend an
     Employee Assistance Program (EAP) meeting on April 9, 2013, thus proving
     charge (2).
¶4        The administrative judge also found that the agency established that on
     March 19, 2013, the appellant was disruptive and unprofessional during a staff
     meeting, that on March 4, 2013, she interrupted and spoke over her supervisor
        found that the agency proved both specifications of charge (6), lack of candor.
¶8         The administrative judge found that the agency established that on
      April 10, 2013, the appellant was away from her place of duty for 1½ hours
      without authorization, and that from March 19, 2013, through March 27, 2013,
      the appellant was away from the workplace without authorization because she had
      not provided administratively acceptable evidence to support her absence. ID at
      23-25. Thus, the administrative judge found that the agency had proved all the
    