In situations where “the existence or nonexistence of certain material facts hinges on witness credibility, detailed findings of fact and explicit credibility determinations are required.” Jones v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Young v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0540-DOC (Nov. 13, 2009); See also Clarke v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents, 166 W. Va. 702, 279 S.E.2d 169 (1981). In assessing the credibility of witnesses, some factors to be considered ... are the witness's: 1) demeanor; 2) opportunity or capacity to perceive and communicate; 3) reputation for honesty; 4) attitude toward the action; and 5) admission of untruthfulness. HAROLD J. ASHER & WILLIAM C. JACKSON, REPRESENTING THE AGENCY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 152-153 (1984). Additionally, the ALJ should consider: 1) the presence or absence of bias, interest, or motive; 2) the consistency of prior statements; 3) the existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness; and 4) the plausibility of the witness's information. Id., Burchell v. Bd. of Trustees, Marshall Univ., Docket No. 97-BOT-011 (Aug. 29, 1997).

Supervisor Brandice Bragg was credible. Her demeanor was professional with appropriate respect for the proceedings. She was certain with clear recall of the interactions with Grievant. She and Grievant varied on the reason and time of the hallway argument, but Ms. Bragg was confident in her testimony, which was corroborated by Alexis Barton. She was very familiar with the processes and expectations of Grievant's position. While there was obvious tension between Grievant and Ms. Bragg, even Grievant commended her knowledge and leadership. Ms. Bragg's testimony regarding Grievant's pocket dial was further corroborated by Shannon Elkins. Ms. Bragg displayed nothing to indicate she was not truthful.