Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03130/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03130-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent
Suzanne Bessent Richardson
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SUZANNE BESSENT RICHARDSON,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3130

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0841-15-0189-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: December 15, 2015

______________________ 

SUZANNE BESSENT RICHARDSON, Friendship, TN, pro 

se.

MICHAEL DUANE AUSTIN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BRIAN A. MIZOGUCHI. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-3130 Document: 21-1 Page: 1 Filed: 12/15/2015
2 RICHARDSON v. OPM

Before PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER, and MOORE,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Suzanne Bessent Richardson was a Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”) disability annuitant. 

When she turned 62, her disability annuity ceased and 

she began receiving a FERS retirement annuity. Ms. 

Richardson challenged the computation of her retirement 

annuity, asserting to the Office of Personnel Management 

(“OPM”) that two periods of her service were not included 

in her annuity computation. OPM rejected Ms. Richardson’s challenge, initially and on reconsideration, and Ms. 

Richardson appealed to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (“Board”). The Board sustained OPM’s rejection of 

Ms. Richardson’s challenge, Richardson v. Office of Personnel Management, Docket No. AT-0841-15-0189-1-I 

(March 20, 2015), and Ms. Richardson timely petitioned 

this court for review of the Board’s final decision. For the 

reasons stated below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

A. Proceedings in front of the OPM. 

Ms. Richardson asserted to OPM that her annuity 

computation should include service with the Department 

of Labor from January 24, 19831 to March 10, 1984 (“DOL 

service”), and include further service with the Veterans 

Administration from August 21, 2000 to March 10, 2001

1 There appears to be some confusion in the record 

as to the precise starting date of Ms. Richardson’s Department of Labor service. However, because Ms. Richardson took a refund of the retirement contributions for 

that time, the precise starting date is of no import. We 

therefore use the date relied on by OPM and the Board in 

the proceedings below.

 

Case: 15-3130 Document: 21-1 Page: 2 Filed: 12/15/2015
RICHARDSON v. OPM 3

(“VA service”). OPM explained in its July 25, 2014 final 

decision that, with regard to the first asserted period of 

service, Ms. Richardson had taken a refund of the retirement contributions for that time. When offered the opportunity to repay the necessary deposit, Mrs. Richardson 

declined. In electing not to repay the deposit, Ms. Richardson voided all annuity rights to that period of service. 

With regard to the second period of service, OPM explained that she served in that specific time under a 

temporary appointment pursuant to which no retirement 

deductions were taken from her salary, and the law does 

not permit after-the-fact deposits to be made for service 

performed on or after January 1, 1989. Thus, as with the 

previous period of service, Ms. Richardson could point to 

no deposits that would entitle her to credit for that time 

in her annuity computation. Consequently, because the 

law did not permit OPM to treat either of the two specified periods of service as qualifying for inclusion in computation of a retirement annuity, OPM rejected Ms. 

Richardson’s request for recomputation of her retirement 

annuity.

B. Proceedings in front of the Board. 

Before the Board, Ms. Richardson repeated her argument that she should be entitled to recomputation of her 

retirement annuity based on the two periods of service 

described above. Repeating the correct legal analysis 

stated by OPM, the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) explained that without deposits having been made for the 

periods of service in question, Ms. Richardson is not 

entitled to consideration of those periods in the calculation of her retirement annuity.

The AJ also referred to two matters that Ms. Richardson had not presented to OPM in her request for recalculation of her retirement annuity. First, Ms. Richardson 

argued to the AJ that she is entitled to recalculation 

based on creditable service for other periods of time. 

Case: 15-3130 Document: 21-1 Page: 3 Filed: 12/15/2015
4 RICHARDSON v. OPM

Because OPM only addressed the two specific time periods described above, and not the other times to which Ms. 

Richardson made reference to the AJ, and because the 

AJ’s prehearing summary referred to those two periods as 

the only ones reviewable in Ms. Richardson’s appeal, the 

AJ declined consideration of the additional periods of 

service. The AJ did, however, expressly state that with

regard to any such additional periods, Ms. Richardson is 

entitled to return to OPM and raise those dates with it. 

And, if OPM refuses to credit any such additional periods 

of service, the AJ noted that Ms. Richardson may file a 

separate appeal to the Board challenging OPM’s refusal. 

Second, the AJ noted that Ms. Richardson challenged 

OPM’s calculation of her “high 3” salary level, for purposes of her retirement annuity. The AJ noted that Ms. 

Richardson had not raised that issue at the prehearing 

conference, nor in her reconsideration request to OPM. 

Consequently, the AJ declined to consider Ms. Richardson’s contention that her “high 3” salary level was incorrectly computed. But, as with the issue of additional 

periods of service, the AJ expressly noted that Ms. Richardson is free to raise the issue of her “high 3” salary level 

upon return to OPM, and to appeal to the Board from any 

adverse decision by OPM on the issue.

Because no deposits were made to cover the two specific periods of time before OPM and the Board, the AJ 

ruled Ms. Richardson ineligible as a matter of law to 

inclusion of those periods in her annuity retirement 

calculation. The decision of the AJ became the final 

decision of the Board, and Ms. Richardson timely sought 

review in this court.

DISCUSSION

Our review authority over a final decision of the 

Board is limited by statute. We may only upset such a 

final decision if we conclude that it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordCase: 15-3130 Document: 21-1 Page: 4 Filed: 12/15/2015
RICHARDSON v. OPM 5

ance with law, or depending upon factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. 7703(c); Frey v. 

Dep’t of Labor, 359 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Before this court, Ms. Richardson refers to a letter to 

a local congressman stating that she had no record of 

withdrawing deposits relating to her DOL service and not 

paying them back. But she does not challenge the record 

evidence which shows that she applied for the refunds 

and OPM offered her the opportunity of redeposit. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that she 

withdrew and did not redeposit the sums associated with 

the DOL service. Further, Ms. Richardson does not challenge the law as applied by OPM and the Board with 

regard to her VA service: there is no entitlement to 

recomputation regarding time for which no deposits exist.

Ms. Richardson argues that the Board should have 

considered both the additional time of service that she 

claims was overlooked in computing her creditable years 

of service, and her claim to recomputation of her “high 3” 

salary level. As the Board noted, these matters were not 

properly before the Board for consideration. But, as also 

noted, Ms. Richardson is entitled to return to OPM to 

seek both addition of other creditable time and revision of 

her high 3 salary level. We express no view on the merits 

of her contentions on those two issues. Whether the 

official records support her assertions is a matter for 

consideration first by OPM, and then by the Board should 

Ms. Richardson be dissatisfied with OPM’s reconsideration decision on those two issues.

Because the final decision of the Board is based on 

substantial evidence and the correct application of the law 

to the facts, we affirm the final decision.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No Costs. 

Case: 15-3130 Document: 21-1 Page: 5 Filed: 12/15/2015