Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03043/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03043-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Agriculture
Respondent
Michael R. Jones
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL R. JONES,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3043

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-3443-13-4830-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: July 13, 2015

______________________ 

MICHAEL R. JONES, Corona, CA, pro se.

CALVIN M. MORROW, Office of the General Counsel, 

United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G.

POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, SCHALL, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3043 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2015
2 JONES v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Michael R. Jones petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that 

dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Jones v. 

Dep’t of Agriculture, No. SF-3443-13-4830-I-1 (M.S.P.B. 

Sept. 29, 2014) (“Final Decision”). We affirm. 

DISCUSSION

I.

In August 2013, Mr. Jones retired from his position as 

an Information Assistant with the Department of Agriculture (“agency”). Mr. Jones previously had held the position of Firefighter/Forestry Technician. He sustained a 

workplace injury in July 1993, however. Eventually that 

injury led to his reassignment to the Information Assistant position in 2004. 

In September 2013, Mr. Jones filed an appeal with the 

Board in which he challenged the agency’s processing of 

his retirement application. Among other things, he 

objected to the agency’s summary of his service and his 

work experience for the part of the application relating to 

firefighter/law enforcement retirement benefits. According to Mr. Jones, the summary was inaccurate because 

the position descriptions to which it referred did not 

match the Fire Engine Operator position he had held. 

Mr. Jones also claimed that, in connection with his retirement application, the agency ignored the cancellation 

of his removal from the service in 1997, that it used the 

wrong dates for the period when he received Office of 

Workers Compensation benefits, and that it ignored his 

approval for disability retirement in 1997. He also alleged that the agency ignored the fact that the position he 

held at the time of his injury in 1993 was noncompetitively upgraded to a GS-7 level. Finally, he asserted that the 

agency failed to include in his application package his 

Case: 15-3043 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2015
JONES v. MSPB 3

submission of more than 284 pages of corrections and 

correspondence that he believed were relevant to the 

application. In short, Mr. Jones claimed that he could be

prejudiced by the agency’s mishandling of his retirement 

application.

On February 19, 2014, the administrative judge (“AJ”) 

to whom the appeal was assigned issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Jones 

v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. SF-3443-13-4830-I-1 (M.S.P.B. 

Feb. 19, 2014) (“Initial Decision”). With respect to Mr. 

Jones’s claims concerning retirement benefits, the AJ 

found that Mr. Jones had failed to establish that the 

Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had issued a 

final decision on his claims so as to give him the right to 

appeal to the Board pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 831.110. Id. at 

5. The AJ also found that, to the extent Mr. Jones was 

attempting to appeal an alleged denial of his request for 

law enforcement benefits pursuant to 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.906 

and 831.910, he had failed to show that either the agency 

or OPM had issued a final decision on his request. Id. at 

6. The AJ also determined that none of the other various 

complaints raised by Mr. Jones provided grounds for 

Board jurisdiction.

Mr. Jones petitioned for review of the Initial Decision. 

In its Final Decision, the Board denied the petition and 

affirmed the Initial Decision. The Board first explained 

that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate an individual’s rights 

and interests under the Civil Service Retirement System 

(CSRS) only after OPM has rendered a final or reconsideration decision on the issue in question. Final Decision

at 3. Noting that Mr. Jones was asserting a violation of 

his rights regarding the processing of his CSRS retirement application through an appeal brought against his 

employing agency, the Board pointed out that such an 

appeal must be filed against “OPM and not the employing 

agency.” Id. at 3–4. “The appellant,” the Board stated, 

“must pursue the matter with OPM and obtain a final 

Case: 15-3043 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/13/2015
4 JONES v. MSPB

OPM decision before filing an appeal to the Board.” Id. at 

4.

Continuing, the Board stated that, “[u]nder 5 C.F.R. 

§ 831.910, the final decision of an agency head issued 

under CSRS on a request for law enforcement/firefighter 

treatment may be appealed to the Board.” Id. The Board 

pointed out, however, that Mr. Jones had submitted the 

agency’s August 2013 letter to OPM certifying that he 

qualified for law enforcement/firefighter benefits. Id. The 

Board also pointed out that there was no evidence that 

either the agency or OPM had issued a final decision as to 

this type of claim. Id. The Board concluded that it therefore lacked jurisdiction over such a claim, stating: 

The appellant has not submitted evidence or argument that would support the exercise of jurisdiction over his claims concerning the processing 

of his retirement application on any other basis. 

Accordingly, we find that the administrative judge 

correctly determined that the Board does not have 

jurisdiction over the appellant’s claims concerning 

the processing of his retirement application.

Id. The Board thus denied Mr. Jones’s petition for review 

and affirmed the Initial Decision, thereby making the 

Initial Decision the final decision of the Board. This 

appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

II.

Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of 

the Board is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision 

unless we find it to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, 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); Kewley v. Dep’t 

Case: 15-3043 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/13/2015
JONES v. MSPB 5

of Health & Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 

1998).

III.

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to actions made 

subject to its review by specific law, rule, or regulation. 

Monasteri v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 232 F.3d 1376, 1378 

(Fed. Cir. 2000). The Board’s authority to review claims 

under the CSRS, 5 U.S.C., Chapter 83, Subchapter III, is 

granted by 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1), which provides in pertinent part as follows:

[A]n administrative action or order affecting the 

rights of an individual or of the United States under this subchapter may be appealed to the Merit 

Systems Protection Board under procedures prescribed by the Board.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 8347(a), the administration of Subchapter III is assigned to OPM. By regulation, a reconsideration or final decision by OPM concerning an individual’s 

rights under the subchapter may be appealed by the 

affected individual to the Board. 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109, 

831.110. See Miller v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 449 F.3d 

1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the CSRS requires that a 

claim under the retirement statutes be first adjudicated 

in a decision by OPM, which may then be appealed to the 

Board). At the same time, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 831.910, 

an employee may appeal to the Board from a final decision of an agency head or OPM concerning a request by 

the employee for a determination of the eligibility of the 

employee’s service for law enforcement officer/firefighter 

treatment for purposes of retirement benefits.

On appeal, Mr. Jones does not dispute that OPM has 

not issued a final decision on his claims concerning the 

agency’s record of his service for purposes of his retirement application. Rather, he is concerned that the agency’s handling of his retirement application might 

Case: 15-3043 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/13/2015
6 JONES v. MSPB

prejudice any eventual final decision. Thus, the Board did 

not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. 

Jones’s claims of inaccuracies in his retirement record. 

Nor does Mr. Jones challenge the decision of the Board 

that there is no evidence that either the agency or OPM 

has issued a final decision on a claim by him relating to 

entitlement to a law enforcement/firefighter annuity. 

Accordingly, the Board also did not err in holding that it 

lacked jurisdiction over any such claim. Mr. Jones makes 

several other arguments on appeal. We have considered 

them all and find them to be without merit.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the Final Decision of the 

Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

No Costs.

Case: 15-3043 Document: 25-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/13/2015