The Tribunal held that:
a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.
b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.
c.The Applicant’s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.
d. The record was...