Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01822/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01822-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent
Alejandra S. Taylor
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALEJANDRA S. TAYLOR,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1822

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-15-0521-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 14, 2016

______________________ 

ALEJANDRA S. TAYLOR, FPO, AP, pro se.

RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA 

M. MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1822 Document: 30-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2016
2 TAYLOR v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Alejandra Taylor appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision denying her claim for survivor

annuity benefits after her husband, James Taylor, passed 

away. Because Mr. Taylor failed to timely elect Mrs. 

Taylor as his beneficiary, we affirm the Board’s decision. 

I 

In 1991, Mr. Taylor, who at the time was married to a 

different spouse, retired from federal service. With the 

consent of his then-spouse, he elected to receive a full 

retirement annuity payable during his lifetime with no 

reduction for a survivor annuity. Thereafter, he divorced 

his prior spouse, and married Alejandra Taylor in 1999. 

In 2005, six years after his remarriage, Mr. Taylor 

wrote to the Office of Personnel Management requesting

that his survivor annuity benefit be made to Mrs. Taylor. 

OPM denied his request because he did not seek to 

change his election within two years of his remarriage, as 

required by the relevant statute. 

After Mr. Taylor passed away in 2006, his widow applied for death benefits and received a lump sum representing the accrued annuity due Mr. Taylor for the partial 

month during which he was still alive.

Six years later, Mrs. Taylor reapplied for death benefits. In February 2013, OPM denied her claim because 

she had already received all the death benefits owed.

Further, construing her application as one for survivor 

benefits, OPM noted that Mr. Taylor had not elected a 

survivor annuity benefit within the statutorily prescribed 

two-year period after his marriage to Mrs. Taylor. Therefore, OPM concluded that Mrs. Taylor was not entitled to 

a survivor benefit.

In a subsequent letter, Mrs. Taylor again requested a 

survivor benefit and OPM again denied her claim. Mrs. 

Case: 16-1822 Document: 30-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2016
TAYLOR v. OPM 3

Taylor appealed to the Board. In an initial order, the 

administrative judge held that Mrs. Taylor was not entitled to receive survivor benefits because OPM had properly notified Mr. Taylor of the two-year statutory limit to 

change a survivor annuity benefit, and his failure to 

timely comply could not be excused. The Board denied 

Mrs. Taylor’s petition for review and affirmed the initial 

decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9) (2012). 

II

We may set aside a Board decision only 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) (2012). Mrs. Taylor bears the burden of 

proving entitlement to annuity benefits. Cheeseman v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 141 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

Mrs. Taylor challenges the Board’s determination that 

she is not entitled to a survivor annuity. We agree with 

the Board. As a retired, remarrying annuitant, Mr. 

Taylor was required to submit a written election within 

two years after his remarriage if he wished to elect a 

reduced retirement annuity and provide for a survivor 

annuity for Mrs. Taylor. 5 U.S.C. §§ 8339(j)(5)(C)(i), (k)(2) 

(2012); see Schoemakers v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 180 F.3d 

1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that even though OPM notified 

Mr. Taylor of the two-year statutory period to change his 

election, he did not attempt to elect a reduced retirement 

annuity with a survivor annuity for Mrs. Taylor until 

more than six years after they married—i.e., well after

the mandatory statutory deadline. Therefore, Mrs. Taylor 

is not entitled to survivor annuity benefits.

Case: 16-1822 Document: 30-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/14/2016
4 TAYLOR v. OPM

We have considered all other arguments Mrs. Taylor

presents and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we 

affirm the Board’s decision.1

AFFIRMED

No costs.

1 We also deny Mrs. Taylor’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

 

Case: 16-1822 Document: 30-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/14/2016