Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01196/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01196-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent
Terry A. Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TERRY A. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1196

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0831-14-1065-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 5, 2016

______________________ 

 TERRY A. WILLIAMS, Norfolk, VA, pro se.

 ADAM E. LYONS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BENJAMIN C.

MIZER. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, and BRYSON, Circuit

Judges.

Case: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2016
2 WILLIAMS v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Terry A. Williams seeks review of the September 15, 2015 decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (“Board”) denying her request for survivorship 

benefits. Supplemental Appendix (“SA”) 1-7. For the 

reasons below, we affirm the Board’s decision.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Williams seeks entitlement to survivorship benefits based on an election of benefits made by Ms. Williams’s former husband, Robert L. Williams, before their 

divorce. The parties do not dispute that Mr. Williams did 

not take any action to renew the pre-divorce election of 

survivorship benefits after the divorce. The principal 

issue on appeal is whether the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) properly informed Mr. Williams after 

the divorce that he was required to renew the pre-divorce 

election of survivorship benefits in order for it to continue 

in force. 

Mr. and Ms. Williams married on November 12, 1975. 

SA 2. During their marriage, Mr. Williams elected to 

have Ms. Williams receive his annuity as a survivorship 

benefit. Id. Mr. Williams retired from Federal employment on May 30, 1995, and Mr. and Ms. Williams subsequently divorced. Id. The divorce decree did not include 

any reference to survivorship benefits. SA 47-48. 

After her divorce, Ms. Williams applied for an annuity 

based on the pre-divorce election. SA 2. On September 

23, 2005, OPM denied Ms. Williams’s application (the 

“2005 decision”). SA 42. Ms. Williams moved for reconsideration of the 2005 decision, and OPM affirmed in a 

decision dated February 23, 2006. SA 39.

Mr. Williams died on October 22, 2012. Ms. Williams 

again applied for a lump sum survivor benefit based on 

Mr. Williams’s pre-divorce election. SA 2. On September 

9, 2013, OPM denied Ms. Williams’s application. 

Case: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/05/2016
WILLIAMS v. OPM 3

The ensuing procedural history involved two appeals. 

In the first appeal, docketed as matter DC-0831-14-01017-

1-1 (the “first appeal”), Ms. Williams appealed from 

OPM’s September 9, 2013 Order, arguing that OPM had 

not provided proper notice to Mr. Williams that he needed 

to make a post-divorce election in order for his pre-divorce 

election of survivorship benefits to be effective. SA 29. In 

an order dated October 31, 2014, the administrative judge 

instructed Ms. Williams to file evidence to support her 

claim that OPM had failed to provide adequate notice to 

Mr. Williams. Id. 

During that first appeal, Ms. Williams explained that 

she had not received the February 23, 2006 reconsideration decision affirming the 2005 decision. SA 34. Accordingly, on March 4, 2014, OPM entered a new 

reconsideration decision, in which it affirmed the 2005 

decision. SA 3. Ms. Williams then appealed from that

decision, in a matter docketed as DC-0831-14-1065-1-1 

(second appeal). SA 33. Ms. Williams dismissed the first 

appeal and chose, instead, to pursue an appeal from the 

March 4, 2014 Order. SA 35-36.

On December 8, 2014, the administrative judge held a 

status conference in the second appeal. SA 26. During 

the status conference, Ms. Williams repeatedly stated 

that the only issue she was raising was whether OPM had 

properly notified Mr. Williams that he was required to 

make a new survivorship election after the divorce in 

order to continue his pre-divorce survivorship election. 

SA 26-27. At the status conference, Ms. Williams also 

withdrew her request for a hearing, and elected to proceed 

on the papers. Id.

On April 23, 2015, the administrative judge entered a 

decision affirming the OPM’s denial of Ms. Williams’s 

request for a survivorship benefit, finding that OPM had 

provided notice to Mr. Williams that a post-divorce election was necessary. SA 4. Ms. Williams sought review of 

Case: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/05/2016
4 WILLIAMS v. OPM

the administrative judge’s decision, and the Board affirmed in its September 15, 2015 decision. 

Ms. Williams now appeals the Board’s September 15, 

2015 judgment.

DISCUSSION

Our review of Board decisions is limited by statute. 

We will set aside a Board decision if 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). Under the substantial evidence standard, “we 

will reverse the MSPB’s decision if it is not supported by 

‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Haebe v. 

Dep’t of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “On 

appeal, [the appellant] bears the burden of establishing 

error in the Board’s decision.” Link v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 51 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

As previously noted, during the December 8, 2014 status conference before the administrative judge, Ms. Williams “confirmed and acknowledged that she is not

challenging OPM’s decision to deny her request for an 

annuity on any other basis” than that OPM failed to 

properly notify Mr. Williams of the need to renew his predivorce election of survivorship benefits. SA 26-27 (emphasis in original). In particular, Ms. Williams “repeatedly confirmed during the prehearing conference she [wa]s 

not raising . . . any other related claims in the context of 

this appeal.” SA 27 n.1. Ms. Williams did not take exception to the administrative judge’s summary of the status 

conference, despite the administrative judge’s express 

invitation to raise any concerns she had. SA 28. Issues 

not raised to the Board are not before us on appeal. 

Frank v. Dep’t of Transp., 35 F.3d 1554, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 

1994). Therefore, the only issue before us is whether the 

Case: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/05/2016
WILLIAMS v. OPM 5

OPM provided proper notice to Mr. Williams regarding 

the need to renew his pre-divorce survivorship election. 

Ms. Williams argues that OPM’s notice was deficient 

because OPM never provided evidence that it mailed a 

notice (1) specifically naming Mr. Williams, and 

(2) specifically bearing Mr. Williams’s address. Appellant 

Br. at 1-2. The government responds that it has provided 

ample evidence in the form of an affidavit from the responsible OPM official averring that notices were sent in 

the ordinary course of business to each annuitant on the 

master annuity roll each year from 1989 to 2008 and that 

those notices informed annuitants of the need to file postdivorce annuity elections within two years of the divorce 

decree. Appellee Br. at 7 (citing SA 17-18 (Affidavit of 

Cyrus S. Benson)). 

We have held that OPM may provide affidavit evidence to demonstrate that it provided an annuity notice, 

and that the affidavit need not refer by name to the 

particular annuitant involved. See Schoemakers v. Office 

of Pers. Mgmt., 180 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 

(finding that an affidavit constituted adequate proof that 

OPM mailed notices to an annuitant even where the 

affidavit did not refer “by name to the particular annuitant involved.”). Here, as in Schoemakers, we agree that 

the government’s affidavit is sufficient evidence of the 

mailing of the requisite notice to Mr. Williams. As noted 

in the September 15, 2015 Board decision, there is no 

dispute that Mr. Williams was receiving his annuity 

payments, confirming that his name and address were 

already on the annuity roll. Id. The Board accordingly 

found it more likely than not that OPM had provided the 

notice regarding survivorship elections to Mr. Williams. 

We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

conclusion regarding the provision of notice to Mr. Williams.

Case: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/05/2016
6 WILLIAMS v. OPM

Ms. Williams further argues that the content of the 

OPM notices did not sufficiently inform Mr. Williams of 

the need to renew pre-divorce survivor elections after a 

divorce in order for the survivor elections to be effective. 

Appellant Br. at 1-2. The government responds that the 

notices referenced in the OPM official’s affidavit informed 

each annuitant about the need to renew pre-divorce 

survivor elections consistent with OPM’s statutory obligation to do so. Appellee Br. at 2-3. 

The 2004 and 2005 OPM notices instructed Mr. Williams as follows:

3. Survivor Annuity Benefits for a Former 

Spouse

Eligibility and Time Limits – With some exceptions, retirees are eligible to elect a reduced annuity to provide a survivor annuity for a former 

spouse if they send a signed request to OPM 1) 

within 2 years after the date the marriage ended 

by divorce or annulment . . . . Please note that a 

NEW SURVIVOR ANNUITY ELECTION IS 

REQUIRED to provide a former spouse annuity 

WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DIVORCE, 

even if you had previously elected to provide a 

survivor annuity for that spouse at the time of retirement as a current spouse. Continuing a survivor reduction, by itself, is not a former spouse 

survivor election. . . .

How to Make an Election – Call or write to OPM 

at the address on this notice within the two-year 

time limit, state the election you want to make, 

and sign your request. . . .

5. Termination of Survivor Elections

Survivor elections terminate upon the death of the 

person elected, divorce of the annuitant from the 

selected spouse . . . .

Case: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/05/2016
WILLIAMS v. OPM 7

SA21-22 (2004 notification) (emphasis and capitalization 

in original); see also SA23-24 (2005 notification) (same).

An election of survivorship benefits for a former 

spouse “shall be made at the time of retirement or, if 

later, within 2 years after the date on which the marriage 

of the former spouse to the employee or Member is dissolved.” 5 U.S.C. § 8339(j)(3). We have held that “an 

annual notice is deficient when it fails to inform an annuitant that, even if he had previously elected a spousal 

annuity when married, he must make a new election after 

his divorce.” Simpson v. Office of Personnel Management, 

347 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” Here, in contrast 

to the deficient annuity notice in Simpson, the 2004 and 

2005 annuity notices expressly instructed Mr. Williams of 

the need to renew his pre-divorce survivorship election in 

order for it to be effective after the divorce. See SA 21-24. 

Ms. Williams’s case also is not akin to the other two 

cases on which she relies, Hairston v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 318 F.3d 1127, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and 

Warren v. Office of Personnel Management, 407 F.3d 1309, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Hairston, we held that an 

annuity notice was defective because it contradicted 

OPM’s statement that it would award annuity benefits 

pursuant to the parties’ final divorce decree in that case. 

318 F.3d at 1131. “Shortly after the divorce became final, 

Mr. Hairston received a notice from OPM with respect to 

OPM’s intention to honor the divorce decree and divide 

his pension equally with Ms. Hairston.” Id. Thus, we 

found that OPM erred in failing to inform Mr. Hairston 

“of the need to affirmatively elect to provide Ms. Hairston 

with a former spouse survivor annuity.” Id. 

Warren is also inapposite. In Warren, OPM never 

disputed “that OPM failed to provide Mr. Pike [the former 

employee] with proper notice of his right, following his 

divorce, to elect a survivor annuity for Ms. Warren. 407 

F.3d at 1316. That is not the case here. Having considCase: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/05/2016
8 WILLIAMS v. OPM

ered Ms. Williams’s arguments and our controlling precedent, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion that 

OPM’s annual notices to Mr. Williams were not defective. 

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we find no reversible error in 

the judgment of the Board denying Ms. Williams’s application for survivorship benefits. Accordingly, we affirm 

the judgment of the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1196 Document: 20-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/05/2016