Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03048/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent
Hazel Elizabeth Scott
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HAZEL ELIZABETH SCOTT,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3048

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0831-13-7351-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015

______________________ 

 HAZEL ELIZABETH SCOTT, Elko, SC, pro se.

 SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, PLAGER, and BRYSON, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3048 Document: 30-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
2 SCOTT v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Hazel E. Scott (“Scott”) appeals the final 

decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”)

dismissing her appeal of for lack of jurisdiction. Scott v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. AT-0831-13-7351-I-1, 2014 WL 

5388205, at *1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 20, 2014). Because we

agree that the Board lacks jurisdiction over Scott’s appeal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On December 21, 2012, in response to Scott’s request 

for death benefits, the Office of Personnel Management 

(“OPM”) sent her a letter stating that she could not claim 

such benefits under the Federal Employees’ Group Life 

Insurance (“FEGLI”) program because she “did not have 

family option C life insurance at the time of [her] family 

member’s death.” Respondent’s Appendix (“R.A.”) 34, 

R.A.61. 

On July 16, 2013, Scott filed an appeal of OPM’s decision with the Board’s Atlanta Regional Office. According 

to the appeal form submitted by Scott, OPM had made the 

following findings, inter alia, in support of its Final Decision rejecting her claim: (1) appellant did not carry 

FEGLI Option C, Family Insurance at the time of her 

retirement; (2) appellant cancelled Option C, Family 

Insurance and elected to retain only Basic Life Insurance 

Coverage on March 15, 1998; (3) the effective date of 

appellant’s retirement was March 27, 1998; (4) appellant 

does not have the right to re-elect Option C; (5) there was 

no fraudulent tampering or forgery of appellant’s life 

insurance documents. R.A.62. 

The Regional Office administrative judge (“AJ”) presiding over Scott’s case issued an Acknowledgment Order 

on September 12, 2013, followed by an Order to Show 

Cause on October 21, 2013 identifying an issue that fell 

within the Board’s jurisdiction. R.A.52-54. The AcknowlCase: 15-3048 Document: 30-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
SCOTT v. MSPB 3

edgement Order informed Scott that, “[i]f your appeal is 

timely filed, and within the Board’s jurisdiction, you have 

a right to a hearing on the merits of your case.” R.A.55

(emphasis added). The Order to Show Cause stated that 

it appeared that the Board “does not have jurisdiction to 

review OPM’s determination addressing the appellant’s 

issues with FEGLI” and ordered the appellant “to file 

evidence and argument to prove that the action at issue is 

within the Board’s jurisdiction.” R.A.52-53. 

Scott responded to these orders, claiming that the 

MSPB had jurisdiction to review her appeal and that she 

never cancelled her insurance. R.A.29-31. Scott also 

claimed that the document OPM used to conclude that 

she had cancelled her insurance was forged or altered. 

R.A.28, R.A.37.

On November 21, 2013, the Regional Office AJ issued 

an Initial Decision dismissing Scott’s appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. As stated in the Order to Show Cause, the 

AJ determined that, under 5 U.S.C §§ 8347(d)(1) and 

8461(e)(1), an administrative action or order affecting the 

rights or interests of an individual under chapter 83 and 

chapter 84 of Title 5 may be appealed to the Board. The 

AJ determined, however, that FEGLI is not covered under 

chapter 83 or chapter 84 of Title 5 and that, therefore, the 

Board lacked jurisdiction to review OPM’s decision regarding FEGLI. 

Scott then filed a petition for review with the Board at 

MSPB Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In addition to 

arguing that OPM’s denial was wrongful, Scott also made 

a number of allegations against the Board, including, 

among others, that the Board failed to follow procedures 

during the appeal, failed to evaluate relevant evidence, 

and denied her request for a hearing. 

On August 20, 2014, the Board issued a Final Order 

denying the petition for review and affirming the Initial 

Decision. Scott, 2014 WL 5388205, at *1. The Board 

Case: 15-3048 Document: 30-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015
4 SCOTT v. MSPB

reiterated the AJ’s finding that FEGLI is not covered 

under the statutes granting the Board jurisdiction over 

OPM appeals. Id. at 2. In addition, the Board determined that there was no evidence that the AJ made any 

procedural error and no statutory requirement that the 

Board hold a hearing on the threshold question of jurisdiction. Id. at 2-3. The Board found that the AJ had 

properly considered only evidence bearing on the jurisdictional issue and not the merits. Id. The Board also 

considered Scott’s argument that the AJ dismissed her 

appeal in “retaliation” for having “blown the whistle” on 

OPM’s alleged fraud. Id. The Board found that appellant 

failed to overcome the presumption that AJs are unbiased

because appellant submitted only “vague, unsupported 

allegations” that the Board found unpersuasive. Id. 

Scott now appeals the Board’s Final Order to this 

court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Our standard of review of Board decisions is limited 

by statute. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We must affirm the 

Board’s decision unless it is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with 

the law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, 

rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. Id. Whether the Board has 

jurisdiction to adjudicate a case on appeal is a question of 

law, which we review de novo. See Ghannam v. MSPB, 

527 Fed. Appx. 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Johnston v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2008); 

Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 

1995). Although we review the Board’s legal conclusions 

de novo, we are bound by its factual determinations 

“unless those findings are not supported by substantial 

evidence.” Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Case: 15-3048 Document: 30-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2015
SCOTT v. MSPB 5

The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary; it is limited to 

those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by 

law, rule, or regulation. Maddox v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The appellant bears the 

burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the Board has jurisdiction over her appeal. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(b)(2)(i). 

The AJ’s Acknowledgment Order and Order to Show 

Cause apprised Scott of the Board’s preliminary finding 

that it lacked jurisdiction over her appeal and gave her 

the opportunity to establish that the Board could exercise 

jurisdiction over her appeal. Scott’s response recited no 

evidence establishing a basis for the Board’s jurisdiction. 

5 U.S.C. §§ 8347(d)(1) and 8461(e)(1) grant the Board

jurisdiction over appeals of OPM decisions regarding the 

administration of the federal retirement system. Lewis v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 301 F.3d 1352, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

Specifically, Section 8347(d)(1) authorizes appeals from 

final decisions under chapter 83 of Title 5, which governs 

the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”), and Section 8461(d)(1) authorizes appeals from final decisions 

under chapter 84 of Title 5, which governs the Federal 

Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”). Id.

In contrast, Scott seeks life insurance benefits paid 

under the FEGLI Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701-8716, which is

governed by Chapter 87 of Title 5. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 

8715, “[t]he district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States 

Claims Court [Court of Federal Claims], of a civil action 

or claim against the United States founded on this chapter.” The law, therefore, confers jurisdiction over claims 

involving the FEGLI Act on the United States district 

courts and the Court of Federal Claims, not on the Board. 

Lewis, 301 F.3d at 1353; Richards v. OPM, 97 M.S.P.R. 

291, 293 (M.S.P.B. 2004). 

Case: 15-3048 Document: 30-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/09/2015
6 SCOTT v. MSPB

Scott’s brief reiterates the same claims she made in 

her petition for review by the Board, including alleged 

forgery, but fails to cite any evidence, much less preponderant evidence, that the Board has jurisdiction over her 

appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i). Scott is not necessarily without recourse, however. If timely, she may appeal 

OPM’s decision to an appropriate United States district 

court or the Court of Federal Claims. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3048 Document: 30-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/09/2015