In No. 88-2028 the District Court ruled in favor of the agency; in No. 88-2842 the District Court ruled in favor of the employee. 679 F. Supp. 1393. We find that both plaintiffs were improperly denied the opportunity to obtain inpatient treatment and that they should therefore be reinstated to the positions from which they were discharged.

" Id. at 134. Accord, Burchell v. Department of Army, 679 F. Supp. 1393 (D.S.C. 1988). But, even if after making substantial efforts to accommodate an employee's handicap, the agency determines that removal is the only option, it must conduct a formal evaluation to determine whether the alcoholism is the cause of the employee's misconduct. "If so, the agency must offer leave without pay if the employee will seek more rehabilitative therapy that seems promising and the agency must also counsel the employee regarding disability retirement."

Id. at 133-134. Accord Walker v. Weinberger (D.D.C. 1985), 600 F. Supp. 757; Burchell v. Dept. of Army (D.S.C. 1988), 679 F. Supp. 1393. The duty to accommodate a handicap attaches only when an employer knows of the handicap, or should have known of the handicap from knowledge of factors from which the handicap might reasonably be inferred.