Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01227/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01227-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elizabeth A. Emond
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ELIZABETH A. EMOND,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1227

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-831M-12-0383-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: April 8, 2016

______________________ 

ELIZABETH A. EMOND, Alexandria, VA, pro se.

MICHAEL D. SNYDER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BRIAN A.

MIZOGUCHI; JESSICA S. JOHNSON, Office of General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1227 Document: 16-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2016
2 EMOND v. OPM

Before DYK, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Elizabeth A. Emond petitions for review of a decision 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) ruling 

that she is not entitled to receive a former spouse annuity. 

We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Until their divorce in 1989, Ms. Emond was married 

to Bobby Burns, a federal employee who died while still 

employed by the Internal Revenue Service. In 2009, Ms. 

Emond applied to the United States Office of Personnel 

Management (“OPM”) for a survivor annuity. Relying on 

a copy of a March 24, 1989, divorce decree from Virginia 

state court that Ms. Emond had provided, which awarded

Ms. Emond a former spouse survivor annuity, OPM 

granted Ms. Emond a survivor annuity. In 2010, OPM 

received a different version of the same divorce decree

that had been filed in connection with an application from 

Leona Burns, Mr. Burns’ mother, to receive Mr. Burns’ 

retirement contributions. This version did not state that 

Ms. Emond was entitled to a former spouse survivor 

annuity. In light of this new version, OPM informed Ms. 

Emond that she was not in fact eligible for a former 

spouse annuity benefit, and OPM determined that it had 

made a $62,739.96 overpayment to Ms. Emond and 

sought to recover that sum. 

Ms. Emond sought reconsideration of OPM’s decision 

and, alternatively, a waiver for the overpayment. OPM 

denied both requests. Ms. Emond timely appealed to the 

MSPB, which determined that the record was not fully 

developed and ordered OPM to obtain an order from the 

Virginia state court declaring which version of the divorce 

decree was the correct one. The Circuit Court of Fairfax 

Case: 16-1227 Document: 16-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2016
EMOND v. OPM 3

County, Virginia ultimately found that the new version 

submitted in connection with Leona Burns’ application—

not the version originally submitted by Ms. Emond—was 

the true and correct copy. In light of this finding, the 

MSPB determined that Ms. Emond was not entitled to a 

survivor annuity, Emond v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC831M-12-0383-I-2, (M.S.P.B. June 25, 2015), but also

found that Ms. Emond was not at fault for the overpayment and was therefore entitled to a waiver. Emond v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-831M-12-0383-B-1 

(M.S.P.B. Oct. 9, 2015). Ms. Emond petitions for review of 

the determination that she is not entitled to a survivor 

annuity. OPM curiously does not seek review of the 

determination that Ms. Emond is entitled to a waiver for 

the overpayment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the decision of the MSPB unless it 

was (1) arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having 

been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Salmon v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 663 F.3d 

1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

A government employee who pays for survivor annuity benefits can elect to have those benefits distributed to a 

former spouse, or such benefits can be awarded pursuant 

to a court order, such as a divorce decree. See, e.g., 

5 C.F.R. §§ 842.604(g), 838.701(a). A person adversely 

affected by a court order who alleges that the order is 

invalid must prove its invalidity and may do so by submitting to OPM a different court order that declares 

invalid the original order submitted by the former spouse. 

5 C.F.R. § 838.724(a)(1). State courts are responsible for 

Case: 16-1227 Document: 16-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/08/2016
4 EMOND v. OPM

determining when court orders are invalid. Id.

§ 838.122(d). 

Here, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia issued an order explicitly stating that Ms. Emond’s version 

of the divorce decree “is not a true and accurate copy,” 

while the version submitted in connection with Leona 

Burns’ application is “true and accurate.” Resp’t’s App. 

17. Because OPM’s original award of former spouse 

survivor benefits was based on the terms of a divorce 

decree that was subsequently found to be inaccurate by 

the Virginia court, the MSPB determined that Ms. Emond 

was not eligible for a survivor annuity. Ms. Emond 

argues that the Virginia court order did not “invalidate” 

the divorce decree she submitted. The MSPB properly 

rejected this argument, which is more semantic than 

substantive. The Virginia court’s order, while not formally invalidating the earlier order, explicitly determined 

that Ms. Emond’s version of the divorce decree was not a 

“true and accurate copy.” Id. The MSPB’s determination 

that Ms. Emond is not entitled to a survivor annuity is 

supported by substantial evidence. 

We have considered Ms. Emond’s other arguments 

and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm 

the MSPB’s determination that Ms. Emond is not entitled 

to a survivor annuity. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 16-1227 Document: 16-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/08/2016