Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03118/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Walter E. Hyde
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Office of Personnel Management
Intervenor

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WALTER E. HYDE,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2015-3118

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0845-14-0491-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 13, 2015

______________________ 

 WALTER E. HYDE, Killeen, TX, pro se.

 LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

 DAVID MICHAEL KERR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Case: 15-3118 Document: 24-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2015
2 HYDE v. MSPB

Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by 

KENNETH M. DINTZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Walter E. Hyde appeals the final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”), which denied Mr. 

Hyde’s petition for review and affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Mr. Hyde’s appeal of a reconsideration decision 

issued by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”). 

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2014, OPM issued a final reconsideration 

decision finding that Mr. Hyde had been overpaid 

$15,701.69 in annuity benefits under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”) and stating its 

intent to collect repayment. Mr. Hyde appealed OPM’s 

reconsideration decision to the Board on June 20, 2014. 

Over a month later, on July 29, 2014, OPM rescinded 

its reconsideration decision and moved to dismiss Mr. 

Hyde’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. OPM stated that it 

intended to remand the case to address Mr. Hyde’s concerns and that it would issue a new final decision extending Mr. Hyde’s appeal rights. The administrative judge 

subsequently issued an Order to Show Cause, informing 

Mr. Hyde that his appeal would be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction unless he showed good cause for why it should 

not be dismissed. Mr. Hyde did not file a response. 

Consequently, the administrative judge issued an initial 

decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, 

Case: 15-3118 Document: 24-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2015
HYDE v. MSPB 3

stating that OPM’s rescission of its reconsideration decision divested the Board of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Hyde petitioned for review of the initial decision. 

The Board agreed with the administrative judge that 

there was no jurisdiction, denied the petition for review, 

and affirmed the initial decision. Mr. Hyde then appealed 

to this court. In his appeal, Mr. Hyde does not present 

any argument with respect to the Board’s jurisdiction. 

Instead, Mr. Hyde focuses only on the merits of the case, 

arguing that he was not at fault in receiving the overpayment of annuity benefits and thus should not be 

required to repay them.

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited by statute. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “(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). 

Moreover, “[i]f the MSPB does not have jurisdiction, 

then neither do we, except to the extent that we always 

have the inherent power to determine our own jurisdiction and that of the board.” Maddox v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Whether the board 

had jurisdiction to adjudicate a case is a question of law, 

which we review de novo.” Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary; it is limited to 

actions made appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation. 

Id.; see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). The Board generally has 

jurisdiction under the FERS only after OPM has issued a 

final decision, such as a reconsideration decision. 5 

U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1); 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109(f), 831.110. The 

petitioner has the burden of proving, by a preponderance 

Case: 15-3118 Document: 24-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/13/2015
4 HYDE v. MSPB

of the evidence, that the Board has jurisdiction. Id.; 5 

C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2). 

We conclude that the Board correctly determined that 

it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Hyde’s appeal. OPM’s 

rescission of its reconsideration decision divested the 

Board of jurisdiction over Mr. Hyde’s appeal. See Richardson v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 101 M.S.P.R. 128, 129 

(2006) (“If OPM completely rescinds a reconsideration 

decision, the Board no longer retains jurisdiction over the 

appeal in which that reconsideration decision is at issue, 

and the appeal must be dismissed.”); Parker v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., 74 M.S.P.R. 131, 133 (1997) (same). Here, 

Mr. Hyde does not dispute that OPM rescinded its reconsideration decision or that such rescission divested the 

Board of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Hyde has shown no 

basis for finding jurisdiction over his appeal, the Board 

properly denied his petition for review. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

Case: 15-3118 Document: 24-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/13/2015