Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03021/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent
Dora L. Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DORA L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3021

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-14-0631-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 6, 2015

______________________ 

DORA L. WILLIAMS, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

KENNETH SAMUEL KESSLER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3021 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2015
2 WILLIAMS v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Dora Williams petitions for review of a final decision 

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

finding that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) 

properly denied her claim for survivor annuity benefits. 

Because Williams has failed to demonstrate any reversible error by the Board, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Richard Lewis, the late spouse of Williams, retired 

from federal service under the Civil Service Retirement 

System on January 3, 1997. At the time of his retirement, 

Lewis was married to his previous wife, but they divorced 

on October 14, 2009. Lewis then married Williams on 

January 13, 2010. On January 25, 2010, Lewis contacted

OPM, requesting that Williams be added to his health 

insurance. In response, OPM acknowledged receipt of the 

information and notified Lewis that he could elect to 

reduce his own annuity payments and establish a survivor annuity benefit for his new spouse within two years of 

his remarriage. OPM explained that failure to elect a 

survivor benefit would mean that his spouse also would 

not be entitled to health benefits after his death. In June 

2013, more than 2 years after their marriage, Lewis 

submitted forms to designate Williams as the 100% 

beneficiary of his benefits. OPM accepted these forms 

after Lewis fully executed them. 

After Lewis’s death, Williams applied to OPM for 

death benefits. On April 10, 2014, OPM denied her 

request, explaining that Lewis had not elected to establish a survivor annuity. Williams sought reconsideration, 

but OPM affirmed its initial decision, stating that it had 

notified Lewis of the two-year requirement for creating a 

survivor annuity and Lewis had not opted to make that 

election within that time frame. OPM notified Williams 

that “[w]e have carefully reviewed our records and we find 

that your late spouse did not submit a timely election (or 

Case: 15-3021 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2015
WILLIAMS v. OPM 3

any election) of survivor benefits for you at any time 

between the date of his marriage to you on January 13, 

2010, and his date of death.” Respondent’s App’x 17.

Williams appealed OPM’s decision to the Board. On 

September 12, 2014, the administrative judge affirmed 

OPM’s denial of Williams claims. This decision became 

the final decision of the Board on October 17, 2014. 

Williams petitioned for review by this court.

II. DISCUSSION

Williams argues that she and her husband submitted 

a “signed Designation of Beneficiary” and a “‘Living Will,’ 

Last Will and Testament,” which should entitle her to all

benefits from her late husband. Petitioner’s Br. 1. Williams contends that OPM acknowledged receipt of her 

husband’s “request of beneficiary.” Id. Williams also 

asserts that not receiving the benefits “has affected [her] 

life physically and emotionally.” Id. at 2.

Although we, like the Board, have “great sympathy 

for the appellant’s plight,” Respondent’s App’x 7, our 

review over the Board’s decision is limited by statute. We 

can only set aside the Board’s findings or conclusions if 

they are “(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) (2012). 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 8339(j)(5)(c)(1), upon remarriage, 

Lewis was required to elect a survivor annuity by reducing his own annuity “in a signed writing received by the 

Office within 2 years after remarriage.” The Board found 

that Lewis failed to elect a survivor annuity for Williams 

within the two-year period prescribed by statute. The 

Board explained there was no basis for waiving the filing 

deadline because OPM notified Lewis of the filing deadline when Lewis informed OPM he had remarried. The 

Case: 15-3021 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2015
4 WILLIAMS v. OPM

Board also found that the forms Lewis submitted to make 

Williams his 100% beneficiary—submitted after the twoyear deadline had passed—did not evidence a clear intent 

to elect a survivor annuity for Williams, specifically 

stating that the election reflected in those forms “will not 

affect rights of survivors for annuity benefits after the 

annuitant’s death.” Respondent’s App’x 6. All of the 

Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. 

On these facts, we have no authority to set aside the 

Board’s findings.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of 

the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3021 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2015