Joseph Atkinson seeks review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), dismissing his appeal of an alleged constructive suspension. See Atkinson v. United States Postal Serv., No. SE0752990351-I-1 (Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. June 23, 2000). The Board held that Mr. Atkinson’s absence from work for the period after August 30, 1999 was voluntary, and that there was no appealable action. We affirm the Board’s decision.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Atkinson was employed by the United States Postal Service (agency) in Anchorage, Alaska. He requested and was granted a period of absence based on job-induced stress. On August 23, 1999, he submitted a letter from his clinical psychologist dated August 20, 1999, stating that he could return to work “by Wednesday, August 25, 1999.” The agency’s contract physician reviewed this letter and deemed it insufficient to show that Mr. Atkinson could perform the duties of his position. On August 26, 1999 the agency wrote Mr. Atkinson that he should supplement his letter with a completed Work Restriction Evaluation Form. Mr. Atkinson’s clinical psychologist completed the form on August 30, 1999. Mr. Atkinson filed the form with the agency on September 14, 1999. An agency contract physician concurred with his return to full duty by letter dated September 14, 1999, received by the agency September 15, 1999. On September 15, 1999 the agency sent Mr. Atkinson a “Return-to-Work” letter and also attempted to advise him by telephone that he could report to work that day. Meanwhile, on September 13, 1999 Mr. Atkinson filed an appeal to the Board, stating that he had been placed in involuntary leave status as of August 25, 1999, the date on which his psychologist had stated he could return to work, and had been constructively and erroneously suspended until at least September 15, 1999.