A concise excerpt from the extended ruling in Barlow v. Dep’t of Navy, issued on September 11 by Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge Scott Borrowman:
On October 29, 2025, shortly after the appellant completed a 14‑day suspension for “Failure to Enter Accurate Time & Attendance, Lack of Candor, and Disrespectful Conduct,” Alger, the appellant’s second‑level supervisor, spotted a poster depicting a red wolf in the office across the hall, and upon closer look the poster displayed the line: “After giving it careful thought, I have decided to become worse.” When he turned back, he noticed various writings on the whiteboard that previously had been blank. Alger recalled that the wall had been bare before.
Alger took a photograph of the wolf poster. He also photographed the whiteboard in the appellant’s office. In the upper left corner appeared the text: “get fired, get in trouble, be brave, never stop fighting!” There was what appeared to be a printout bearing the following line: “Behold the field in which I grow my fucks. Lay thine eyes upon it and thou shalt see that it is barren.”
Dominating roughly 70% of the surface was written: “FAFO!” The initial F included the word “fuck” written many times—Alger counted 25—intermixed with scribbles…. The A included the word “around” several times. The second F contained the word “find” written multiple times. The final O contained the word “out” written multiple times. The remainder of the whiteboard included six photographs, some numbers whose meaning was unclear, and something not fully legible in the bottom right corner.
Alger had participated in the suspension proceedings and believed that the material warranted reporting as a potential insider threat, so he forwarded the information to G.S., his direct supervisor, as well as to human resources, the legal department, and security.
In his close‑of‑record declaration, Alger stated that he was not frequently in the appellant’s office but recalled that it typically contained very few personal items, was neat, and had a professional and almost sterile feel. The images he now saw struck him as unusual. He believed the overall display felt manic and obsessive, and while each statement on its own might not have been alarming, taken together they left him unsettled and he interpreted the display as “an aggressive taunt at a minimum, and at the high end, a direct threat to [the appellant’s] chain of command.” He felt obligated to report a potential threat or risk of workplace violence….
[In the course of the investigation, the appellant told Sodl [the investigator] that FAFO meant “fool around and find out” and that “we are done with that shit” was a quote from Pete Hegseth, which the appellant believed indicated that the military was: “[D]one with that shit. All that woke shit in the military that makes me want to puke. I put the quote on the wall because it is inspiring to me.” He told Sodl that the whiteboard was intended for his own use and not for anyone else. He had placed the language there earlier, around the time Charlie Kirk was killed in September 2025.
The appellant told Sodl that the numbers on the whiteboard referred to “the number of times I have had to take a shit at work because of the stress,” and indicated that he was experiencing high blood pressure, vertigo, and intestinal distress. When asked about the wolf poster—which the appellant referred to as the Shiba Inu known in various memes—the appellant referred to a recent low performance rating, and thought “yeah I’m a piece of crap so I will continue being a piece of crap. IF that’s what you think of me, then okay, all right, do your worse [sic].”
The administrative judge determined that this was an “inappropriate display,” which could (together with another charge) lead to discipline, though the proposed sanction was a 30‑day suspension:
I begin with the whiteboard and FAFO. I conclude that this was inappropriate for an office. While I accept that it was oriented toward the appellant and not the hallway, it would still be visible to anyone who entered the office. Moreover, it consumed the majority of the appellant’s whiteboard. The meaning is objectively aggressive, though how aggressive depends on context.
The appellant pointed out that on September 30, 2025, Secretary Hegseth gave a speech in which he used the initialism, which he required all personnel to watch or read. Winslow [a department head who had reviewed the proposed disciplinary action] acknowledged that Hegseth had used the term but concluded that “the context of use is important,” and that Hegseth used the term as a “threat to our enemies” and that the appellant spelled out the word “fuck” multiple times. On this point, in the response to the proposal, the appellant wrote that he used an erasable marker and “the number of times ‘fuck’ appeared has not independent meaning.” In his close-of-record brief, the appellant argued that “the word ‘fuck’ was not written even one time.” Zooming in on the picture, the word “fuck” is clearly visible but covered with scribbles. Considering the full record, this was inappropriate for a government office.
The other images were less aggressive but still present an overall effect that is inconsistent with the normal standards that apply to office decorations because they suggest hostility towards coworkers. Specifically, the wolf/dog image suggests that the appellant “decided to become worse,” while the image about “the field in which I grow my fucks” suggests that the appellant does not care about feedback.
I accept the appellant’s statement that he did not intend to “threaten, intimidate, or harass any individual.” However, applying an objective lens, the displays were inconsistent with the usual standards for appropriate displays and decoration in a professional office….
