[brief] Due to [...]’s agreed upon May 1, 2021 resignation date, only a pro-rated $117,630.54 of her 2020-2021 salary was paid to her based on her retirement date.  (Pa33).  The Settlement Agreement specifically noted that “The [...] and [...] are not responsible for any determinations made by the Division of Pension & Benefits, Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund .  . . .” (Pa33).  The Kenilworth [...] passed two resolutions, both dated April 12, 2021, in which they approved the Settlement Agreement and accepted [...]’s resignation.  (Pa48; Ra9).  On April 16, 2021, [...] applied for a May 1, 2021 Service Retirement.  (Ra10-Ra12).  [...] received a quotation of retirement benefits on May 20, 2021, based a final salary of $105,003.66.  (Pa26).  At its meeting of June 3, 2021, the Board approved [...]’s application for retirement effective May 1, 2021.  (Ra13).  By letter dated August 5, 2022, [...], the Manager for Fiscal Resources of the [...], advised [...] that the salary increases provided for in the Settlement Agreement were not creditable for purposes of calculating her pension benefits pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:3-4.1.  (Pa23-Pa24).  Kusmierczyk explained that while the complaint alleged unequal pay going back to 1997, the Settlement Agreement provided for significant salary increases in only the last three school years of her employment, and he noted that these are the only three years used in the final salary calculation for pension purposes.  (Pa23).  Thus, because the settlement was made in anticipation of her agreed upon retirement and the retroactive salary increases were made only for the last three years of her employment, such increases were determined to be “extra compensation. ” (Pa23).  By letter dated September 8, 2022, [...] appealed the Division’s decision that the salary adjustments were not creditable for pension purposes.  (Pa21-Pa22).  [...] argued that it was only coincidental that the remedy was implemented for the last three years of her employment.  (Pa21).  The Board considered her appeal at its January 5, 2023 meeting and determined that pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:3-4.1 the additional salary increases were extra compensation made primarily in anticipation of [...]’s retirement and therefore were not creditable for purposes of calculating her pension.  (Pa18-Pa20).  The Board concluded that it was undisputed that [...] received retroactive salary increases of approximately $32,083 per year for only the final three years of her service, that [...] agreed to resign in anticipation of retirement effective May 1, 2021, and that she agreed to do so in exchange for her dismissal of the lawsuit.  (Pa19).  The Board further determined that there was no connection between the settled salary increases and her service rendered and no across-the-board adjustment for all similarly situated teachers.  (Pa19-Pa20).  Further, [...]’s employment lawsuit was not adjudicated and there was no court order or legal judgment that concluded she was entitled to an increase in salary as a matter of law.  (Pa11).  Thereafter, the Board voted to deny [...]’s request for salary credit based on the retroactive salary increases.  (Pa19).  [...] appealed and the Board considered her appeal at its April 13, 2023 meeting.  (Pa15-Pa17).  After careful consideration, the Board denied her request for a hearing for the reasons set forth in the Board’s January 9, 2023 denial letter and directed the Board Secretary to draft findings of fact and conclusions of law.  (Pa15).  The Board issued its Final Administrative Determination on May 5, 2023, denying [...]’s request for salary credit based upon the Settlement Agreement with the Kenilworth [...] and the [...].  (Pa9-Pa14).  This appeal followed.