Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01133/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01133-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Erlinda Dominado
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ERLINDA DOMINADO,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1133

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-15-0490-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 10, 2016

______________________ 

ERLINDA DOMINADO, FPO, AP, 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 PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 16-1133 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2016
2 DOMINADO v. MSPB

Erlinda Dominado appeals from the final decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”). 

The Board dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as 

the Office of Personnel Management had not yet issued a 

final decision on her application for death benefits under 

the Civil Service Retirement System. Because the Board

correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. 

Dominado’s appeal, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

 Between June 30, 2014, and March 2, 2015, Ms. 

Dominado filed an application with the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) for death benefits under the 

Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) on the basis of 

the federal service of her deceased spouse. On April 15, 

2015, lacking any decision on her application, Ms. 

Dominado filed an appeal with the MSPB. The administrative judge issued an order advising Ms. Dominado that 

the Board may lack jurisdiction over her appeal, as its

jurisdiction over CSRS matters does not vest until after 

OPM issues a final decision. The order did note an exception to this general rule, citing Okello v. Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R. 498 (2014): the Board may 

exercise jurisdiction if OPM refuses or improperly fails to 

issue a final decision. The order explained that, in such

circumstances, the appellant must make a showing that 

she has made repeated requests for a final or reconsideration decision, and the evidence indicates that OPM does 

not intend to issue such a decision. 

Ms. Dominado responded to the order, arguing that

her appeal fell within the Okello exception. OPM moved 

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The administrative 

judge granted OPM’s motion and dismissed the appeal, 

finding that the Okello exception did not apply. Ms. 

Dominado petitioned for review, and the Board affirmed. 

Dominado v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., SF–0831–15–0490–I–

1, 2015 WL 5315804 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 14, 2015) (“Board 

Case: 16-1133 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2016
DOMINADO v. MSPB 3

Decision”). Ms. Dominado now appeals to us. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Whether the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate an 

appeal is a question of law, which we review de novo. 

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

1995). Ms. Dominado has the burden of establishing the 

Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 

C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2)(i); Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 528 

F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

We conclude that the Board properly dismissed Ms. 

Dominado’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The MSPB’s 

jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has 

specifically been granted jurisdiction by any law, rule or 

regulation. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a); Prewitt v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 133 F.3d 885, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This jurisdiction 

includes review of “an administrative action or order 

affecting the rights or interests of an individual” under 

the CSRS as administered by OPM. 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(1); 

5 C.F.R. § 831.110. Ordinarily, this means the MPSB can 

assume jurisdiction over a CSRS appeal only after OPM 

has issued a “final decision,” e.g., a reconsideration decision or an initial decision that OPM designates as a final 

decision. 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109; 831.110; 841.306; 841.307. 

It is undisputed that OPM did not issue either of these 

types of decisions here. 

However, the MSPB also has a series of precedents allowing it to exercise jurisdiction over retirement matters 

in which OPM “has refused or improperly failed to issue a 

final decision.” Okello v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 120 

M.S.P.R. 498, 502 (2014); see Malone v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 590 F. App’x 1002, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“However, 

an exception to the final decision requirements exists 

where OPM has constructively denied an individual the 

opportunity to receive a final decision.”).

Case: 16-1133 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/10/2016
4 DOMINADO v. MSPB

For example, in Okello, the Board exercised jurisdiction when OPM failed to issue a final decision after over 

six years of dispute, and after repeated attempts by the 

appellant to procure a final decision. 120 M.S.P.R. at 503. 

Based on these facts, the Board concluded that OPM had 

“effectively abdicated its role of adjudicating [the] claim.” 

Id. at 504. Similarly, in Easter, the Board exercised 

jurisdiction when OPM did not acknowledge receipt of an 

application and failed to take action for over eighteen 

months. Easter v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 102 M.S.P.R. 

568, 571 (2006). 

Here, the Board considered whether it should exercise

jurisdiction based on OPM’s failure to act, and declined to 

do so. The Board noted that OPM’s delay in this case was 

less than one year. And although Ms. Dominado made 

repeated requests for OPM to process her application, 

those requests were made in quick succession within one 

week, and the appeal was filed shortly thereafter.1 The 

Board concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Ms. 

Dominado “failed to submit any evidence to suggest that 

OPM does not intend to issue an initial or final decision.” 

Board Decision at 4. 

We agree. This case is not like the previous cases in 

which the Board has exercised jurisdiction in light of 

OPM’s failure to act. Here, the process has not dragged 

 

1 The Board Decision states that Ms. Dominado 

“submitted documentation appearing to show that she 

sent emails to various OPM employees on March 2, 3, 5, 6, 

and 8, 2015, demanding a decision on her application for 

death benefits.” Board Decision at 3. These documents 

are not in the record before us, so we cannot review the 

Board’s finding on this point. But that is beside the point, 

as Ms. Dominado does not rely on these documents—

indeed, she does not even make an argument that she 

requested OPM to make a decision. 

Case: 16-1133 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/10/2016
DOMINADO v. MSPB 5

on for years, nor has OPM given any indication that it 

does not intend to act on Ms. Dominado’s application. 

Absent these types of circumstances, the statutory authority to decide Ms. Dominado’s application remains 

with OPM, and the Board lacks jurisdiction to act. See, 

e.g., McNeese v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 61 M.S.P.R. 70 

(1994); Keira v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 396 Fed. App’x. 703 

(Fed. Cir. 2010).

Finally, the relief that Ms. Dominado requests of us is 

to vacate the Board’s decision and remand the case to 

OPM. In effect, our decision achieves Ms. Dominado’s 

goal. While we are affirming rather than vacating the 

Board’s decision, the end result is that Ms. Dominado’s 

case remains with OPM until a final decision is rendered, 

or circumstances arise indicating that OPM does not 

intend to issue a timely, appealable decision. At such

time, Ms. Dominado may seek review before the Board.2 

For these reasons, we affirm the Board’s dismissal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

 

2 We note that Ms. Dominado’s informal brief discusses the law applicable to incorrect retirement advice. 

She does not allege, however, that she has been given any 

incorrect retirement advice, explain the relevance of the 

law to her appeal, or otherwise identify any error in the 

Board’s decision.

Case: 16-1133 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/10/2016