Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03088/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawnte' L. Aaron
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SHAWNTE' L. AARON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3088

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-0845-14-0503-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 14, 2015

______________________ 

 SHAWNTE’ L. AARON, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.

 STEPHEN FUNG, Office of the General Counsel, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3088 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2015
2 AARON v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Ms. Shawnte’ Aaron seeks review of a decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing her 

appeal as untimely filed. As Ms. Aaron fails to demonstrate that the Board abused its discretion in dismissing 

her appeal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Aaron retired from the United States Postal Service for disability in August 1997. Shortly thereafter, she 

began receiving disability benefits from the Office of 

Personnel Management (“OPM”). In September 2013, 

OPM learned that Ms. Aaron had also received Social 

Security disability benefits since February 2006. OPM

notified Ms. Aaron by letter dated September 23, 2013 

that she had been overpaid for the period between 2006 

and 2013. The letter explained that the disability payments from OPM should have been reduced by the 

amount Ms. Aaron received under Social Security. Thus, 

OPM had overpaid Ms. Aaron by $63,833, which would be 

collected by reducing her monthly disability benefits. 

Ms. Aaron requested a waiver of the overpayment, which 

OPM denied in a reconsideration decision dated April 10, 

2014. 

OPM’s April 10 reconsideration decision advised 

Ms. Aaron that any appeal must be filed with the Board 

within 30 days after the date of receipt of the agency’s 

decision, that is, by May 16, 2014. On a date uncertain 

from the record, Ms. Aaron incorrectly filed her appeal 

with OPM rather than the Board. While her appeal 

petition was dated May 2, 2014, Ms. Aaron has not provided detail regarding how or when she submitted it to 

OPM. The date on which OPM received the appeal is also 

not identified in the record. The record does show, however, that OPM forwarded Ms. Aaron’s appeal petition to 

the Board on July 17, 2014, and it was received by the 

Board on July 28. Because Ms. Aaron’s appeal arrived at 

Case: 15-3088 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2015
AARON v. MSPB 3

the Board outside the 30-day deadline, OPM moved to 

dismiss Ms. Aaron’s appeal as untimely filed. The administrative judge (“AJ”) then issued an order for Ms. Aaron 

to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as 

untimely filed, without a showing of good cause for the 

delay. Ms. Aaron did not respond to OPM’s motion or to 

the Board’s show-cause order.

The AJ issued an Initial Decision on September 10, 

2014, finding that Ms. Aaron “has not proven that she 

timely filed her appeal, albeit erroneously, with OPM.” 

RA 12. The AJ concluded that the May 2, 2014 date on 

her appeal petition did not establish preponderant evidence that she had in fact mailed it prior to the May 16, 

2014 appeal deadline. The AJ further found that 

Ms. Aaron “provided no explanation for her late filing” 

and “failed to establish that good cause exists for her 

delay.” Id. 

Ms. Aaron filed a petition for review, which the Board 

denied, having found no new, previously unavailable 

evidence or error of law by the AJ. While her review 

petition asserted, through counsel, that the appeal was 

mailed on May 2, 2014, it did not include a declaration 

from Ms. Aaron detailing her filing of the appeal. The 

petition also did not address Ms. Aaron’s failure to respond to the Board’s timeliness order. Thus, the Board 

concluded that Ms. Aaron’s petition for review “fail[ed] to 

explain how and when she submitted her appeal to OPM” 

and “f[e]ll short of the standard of evidence required to 

establish that her appeal was timely filed.” RA 5. The 

AJ’s Initial Decision therefore became the final decision of 

the Board. Ms. Aaron timely appealed to this court, and 

we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Board decision is limited. We must affirm a final decision of the 

Board unless it is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

Case: 15-3088 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/14/2015
4 AARON v. MSPB

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); Stout v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 389 F.3d 1233, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We 

review the Board’s factual findings concerning timeliness 

for substantial evidence. Espenschied v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 804 F.2d 1233, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Whether to 

waive the time limit “is a matter committed to the Board’s 

discretion and this court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the Board.” Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

Ms. Aaron bears the burden of proof regarding the timeliness of her appeal. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B).

When a petitioner files an untimely appeal, she must 

show good cause for the delay and that she “exercised due 

diligence in attempting to meet the filing deadline.” 

Zamot v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 332 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed.

Cir. 2003); see also 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). When determining whether a petitioner has shown good cause for an 

untimely filing, the Board may consider several factors 

such as the length of the delay, whether there was notification of the time limit, the reasonableness of the excuse 

for the delay, and the circumstances surrounding the 

delay. Walls v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 29 F.3d 1578, 1582 

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

In this case, substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

finding that the appeal was untimely and that Ms. Aaron 

failed to show good cause for her delay. Ms. Aaron never 

responded to the AJ’s order to show cause why her appeal 

should not be dismissed as untimely filed. We have 

previously found that a “failure even to respond to the 

administrative judge’s order directing [a petitioner] to ‘file 

evidence and argument demonstrating that the appeal 

was timely filed or that good cause exists for the delay’ 

justified the administrative judge’s conclusion that her

appeal was untimely and should be dismissed.” Hubbard 

Case: 15-3088 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/14/2015
AARON v. MSPB 5

v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 605 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir.

2010). We see no reason to reach a different result here. 

On appeal, Ms. Aaron states that she “ha[s] no excuse 

other than confusion on my part concerning the process.” 

However, we have explained that “an appellant’s confusion regarding Board procedures does not demonstrate 

good cause for waiving a filing deadline.” Basu v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 594 F. App’x 981, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. 

denied, 135 S. Ct. 2374 (2015). That is particularly so 

here where Ms. Aaron did not respond to the show-cause 

order or provide a sworn statement explaining the circumstances under which the appeal was filed. 

Under the facts of this case, the Board’s dismissal of 

Ms. Aaron’s appeal as untimely was not arbitrary, an 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise erroneous under the law. 

See Turman-Kent v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 657 F.3d 1280, 

1282 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that a petitioner “bears 

a ‘heavy burden’ to overturn the Board’s determination 

that good cause has not been shown for her untimely 

filing” (quoting Zamot, 332 F.3d at 1377)). 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision dismissing 

Ms. Aaron’s appeal as untimely filed without good cause 

shown. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own. 

Case: 15-3088 Document: 21-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/14/2015