Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03197/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Malone
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RALPH M. MALONE,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3197

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-94-0834-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 8, 2016

______________________ 

 RALPH M. MALONE, San Tan Valley, AZ, pro se.

 SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 15-3197 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2016
2 MALONE v. MSPB

Ralph M. Malone appeals the final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), dismissing his 

petition for review as untimely filed. For the reasons 

discussed below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In July 1978, Mr. Malone, a former employee of the 

United States Postal Service, was granted disability 

retirement. In August 1981, Mr. Malone became employed as an annuitant for the Department of Treasury, 

Internal Revenue Service. During this time, Mr. Malone 

continued to receive his disability annuity. Mr. Malone’s 

employment with the Department of Treasury ended in 

1984 when his employment was involuntarily terminated. 

After his separation from the Department of Treasury, 

Mr. Malone began to receive a supplemental annuity 

based on his reemployment service. 

Subsequently, the Department of Treasury learned 

that it had incorrectly classified Mr. Malone as a full-time 

employee rather than an annuitant. On June 26, 1986, 

the Department of Treasury submitted a Standard Form 

2806-1, Notice of Correction of Individual Retirement 

Record to the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”). 

Mr. Malone appealed this action to the Board and argued 

that he was a regular employee. Mr. Malone also noted 

that his involuntary termination of employment had been 

voided as an improper action. In support of this assertion, Mr. Malone enclosed a copy of a Notification of 

Personnel Action form dated March 27, 1986, which he 

claimed rescinded the prior termination action. 

On October 26, 1994, Mr. Malone entered into a settlement agreement with the OPM. Under the terms of 

the settlement, Mr. Malone agreed to dismiss his appeal. 

In exchange, the OPM agreed that should Mr. Malone 

recover from his disability and become reemployed by the 

Federal government, his rate computation would include 

Case: 15-3197 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2016
MALONE v. MSPB 3

credit for his prior service, including his reemployment 

between 1981 and 1984. 

After reaching the age of sixty, Mr. Malone submitted 

“an application for Immediate Retirement benefits.” 

Pet’r’s Informal Reply Br. 3. According to Mr. Malone, 

from 1978 until 2008, when he turned sixty, he was an 

employee of the Federal government receiving disability 

benefits and thus eligible for additional retirement benefits. The OPM construed Mr. Malone’s application as one 

for a “re-determined annuity” and found that he was not 

eligible. Resp’t’s App. 7. The OPM based its finding 

partly on the fact that Mr. Malone was not employed by 

the Federal government after 1984. Mr. Malone timely 

appealed the OPM’s determination to the Board. 

Mr. Malone’s appeal partly relied on a claim that the 

OPM procured the 1994 settlement agreement through 

fraud. According to Mr. Malone, his 1984 termination 

was rescinded in 1986 by operation of the Notification of 

Personnel Action form. However, Mr. Malone asserted

that he was not aware of the form and only learned of its 

existence in 2011. According to Mr. Malone, had he 

known of the form, it would have impacted his decision on 

whether to enter into the settlement agreement. 

In addressing Mr. Malone’s appeal, the administrative 

judge determined that he did not have jurisdiction to 

determine the validity of the 1994 settlement agreement. 

The judge presented Mr. Malone with a choice: he could 

have his appeal dismissed without prejudice and request 

that the full Board review the settlement agreement, or 

he could continue the appeal under the assumption that 

the 1994 agreement was valid. Mr. Malone opted to 

dismiss his appeal without prejudice and file a petition for 

review. 

On February 4, 2015, Mr. Malone submitted a petition 

for review of the 1994 settlement agreement and a motion 

to accept the filing as timely. In his petition, he again 

Case: 15-3197 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2016
4 MALONE v. MSPB

asserted that the OPM had concealed the 1986 Notification of Personnel Action form and he only became aware

of it when he obtained a complete copy of his Disability 

Retirement File in 2011. Mr. Malone also noted that in 

April 2013, he filed a civil suit to obtain a copy of his 

Official Personnel Folder and that he was still waiting for 

the file. 

In an initial decision, the Board found that Mr. 

Malone’s petition for review of the 1994 settlement was 

untimely filed without good cause shown. Mr. Malone 

subsequently filed a petition for review of the initial 

decision. After additional briefing, the Board affirmed the 

initial decision and again found that the petition for 

review of the 1994 settlement was untimely and that Mr. 

Malone had not provided good cause for the delay. This 

appeal followed.

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).

The sole issue before us in this appeal is whether the 

Board appropriately dismissed Mr. Malone’s petition for 

review of the 1994 settlement agreement as untimely. A 

petition for review must be filed “within 35 days after the 

date of issuance of the initial decision . . . .” 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.114(e). The Board may waive the thirty-five day 

deadline “only if the party submitting the motion shows 

good cause.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f). “The decision to 

waive the time limit to appeal to the Board is committed 

to the discretion of the Board, and is reversed only for 

abuse of that discretion.” Herring v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

778 F.3d 1011, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Case: 15-3197 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2016
MALONE v. MSPB 5

As an initial matter, we conclude that the Board did 

not fail to apply the proper law. To determine whether to 

grant a motion to accept a filing as timely, there are no 

specific criteria that the Board must use. Walls v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 29 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, the Board has identified a list of factors that should 

be considered in determining whether good cause has 

been shown: 

the length of the delay; whether appellant was notified of the time limit or was otherwise aware of 

it; the existence of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant which affected his ability to 

comply with the time limits; the degree to which 

negligence by the appellant has been shown to be 

present or absent; circumstances which show that 

any neglect involved is excusable neglect; a showing of unavoidable casualty or misfortune; and the 

extent and nature of the prejudice to the agency 

which would result from waiver of the time limit.

Id. (quoting Alonzo v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.B. 

262, 264 (1980)). In addition, the Board should take a 

petitioner’s pro se status into consideration. See id. at 

1583.

In determining whether Mr. Malone had shown good 

cause, the Board considered the length of the delay, the 

reason for the delay and whether Mr. Malone had shown 

due diligence, Mr. Malone’s pro se status, and the existence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his 

ability to comply with the time limits. The factors considered by the Board in Mr. Malone’s case mirror the factors 

applied by the Board in similar cases. Consequently, the 

Board did not fail to apply the proper law and acted in 

accordance with the law. 

Because the Board applied the proper law to Mr. 

Malone’s motion, we will not disturb the Board’s determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. We 

Case: 15-3197 Document: 21-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2016
6 MALONE v. MSPB

conclude that the Board’s determination that Mr. 

Malone’s petition for review of the 1994 settlement 

agreement was untimely is supported by substantial 

evidence. 

Mr. Malone contends it was not possible for him to 

challenge the validity of the settlement agreement until 

he learned of the 1986 Notification of Personnel Action 

form. He claims that he was unaware of the 1986 form

until 2011. However, Mr. Malone provided a copy of the 

form as part of his submission to the Board when he 

challenged the Department of Treasury’s 1986 correction 

to his retirement record. It was Mr. Malone’s appeal of 

that correction which led to the 1994 settlement agreement that Mr. Malone now seeks to challenge. Thus, the 

Board had evidence that Mr. Malone was in possession of 

the 1986 Notification of Personnel Action form before he 

entered into the 1994 settlement agreement. Based on 

this evidence, the Board could reasonably infer that Mr. 

Malone was aware of the 1986 form before 2011 and was 

able to pursue his claim at any time during the more than 

twenty years between the 1994 settlement agreement and 

his 2015 filing of the petition for review of that settlement. Consequently, the Board’s determination that Mr. 

Malone failed to show good cause for the delay was supported by substantial evidence.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision and deny Mr. Malone’s request for remedies. We 

note that our opinion only concerns the single question of 

whether Mr. Malone’s petition to review the 1994 settlement agreement was timely filed. As Mr. Malone’s appeal 

regarding his re-annuity determination was dismissed 

without prejudice, he is free to continue that appeal, 

assuming he has complied with any conditions set forth 

by the administrative judge.

Case: 15-3197 Document: 21-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2016
MALONE v. MSPB 7

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.

Case: 15-3197 Document: 21-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2016