Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03137/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03137-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan W. Carter
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALAN W. CARTER,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3137

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0831-14-0619-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 15, 2015

______________________ 

 ALAN W. CARTER, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

 ANTHONY F. SCHIAVETTI, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/15/2015
2 CARTER v. OPM

PER CURIAM.

Alan Carter was a federal employee at the time that 

he and Karen Kay Carter divorced. We will call them by 

their first names for simplicity. A state-court “domestic 

relations order” at the time provided expressly for an 

allocation of any “former spouse survivor annuity” that 

Karen might receive upon Alan’s death, referring expressly to the statutory provision authorizing such an annuity, 

5 U.S.C. § 8341(h). The order awarded Karen the “maximum possible former spouse survivor annuity under the 

Civil Service Retirement System in the same amount to 

which Karen Kay Carter would have been entitled if the 

divorce had not occurred.” S.A. 68. 

Years later, Alan retired. A few years after that, he 

submitted to the Office of Personnel Management an 

amended state-court domestic relations order, which 

stated that his ex-wife should receive a lower amount of 

any former spouse survivor annuity, keyed to the amount 

of time (seven years) they were married. S.A. 59. Karen 

and Alan agreed that this lower amount was what they 

had originally intended years earlier. But OPM concluded that, because Alan had retired, it was barred by statute and regulation from processing the request to change 

the survivor annuity based on the amendment—a change 

that would have reduced the annuity-funding amounts 

that OPM was withholding from retirement benefits being 

paid to Alan. The Merit Systems Protection Board agreed 

with OPM that the amended order was ineffective because it was issued after Alan had retired. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

While working for the Army, Alan was married to Karen. Their marriage, which began on March 26, 1988, 

ended in divorce on March 3, 1995. On that date, the 

Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, entered a 

decree of dissolution, which incorporated the terms of a 

marital settlement agreement signed by the parties. The 

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/15/2015
CARTER v. OPM 3

marital settlement agreement provided that, to comply 

with OPM regulations, the court would enter a domestic 

relations order detailing Karen’s right to receive a portion 

of Alan’s eventual federal pension benefits. 

The state court entered the domestic relations order 

on June 8, 1995. It awarded Karen a portion of Alan’s

monthly benefit and, separately, provided for Karen to 

receive a former spouse survivor annuity under federal 

law: 

Under section 8341(h)(1) of Title 5, United States 

Code, Karen Kay Carter is awarded the maximum 

possible former spouse survivor annuity under the 

Civil Service Retirement System in the same 

amount to which Karen Kay Carter would have 

been entitled if the divorce had not occurred.

S.A. 68. On November 11, 1995, OPM notified the parties

by letter that it had processed the papers, including the 

June 1995 domestic relations order, and that, if Karen 

survived Alan, she would receive a survivor annuity equal 

to 100% of the surviving spouse benefit payable under the 

Civil Service Retirement System. 

Mr. Carter retired fifteen years later, on October 22, 

2010. In 2011, based on the June 1995 domestic relations 

order, OPM calculated the maximum survivor annuity for 

Karen and, to cover the cost, began deducting $397 from 

the monthly retirement payments to Alan. Believing 

OPM’s determination to be erroneous, Alan turned to the 

Missouri state court, and on March 13, 2013, he obtained 

an amended domestic relations order, which modified the 

June 1995 order. As relevant here, the amended order 

reduced the apportionment of the former spouse survivor 

annuity from the “maximum possible” to a “prorata [sic]

share.” S.A. 59. Alan filed the new order with OPM to try 

to effectuate the change. 

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/15/2015
4 CARTER v. OPM

OPM notified Alan that, under 5 C.F.R. § 838.806, it 

could not process the request. The problem, OPM explained, was that the amended order was issued after 

Alan retired and was a modification of the first order 

dividing marital property. 

When Alan filed an appeal with the Merit Systems 

Protection Board, Karen intervened to state her agreement with Alan. As the Board later described her position, Karen agreed that “the amended [domestic relations 

order] properly reflected the intent of the parties’ original 

settlement agreement,” S.A. 7, a description that refers to 

the March 1995 agreement, but not the June 1995 domestic relations order. The administrative judge reversed 

OPM’s decision, ruling that 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(b) permits 

processing of an amended order that is submitted before 

either the employee’s retirement or the employee’s death.1

On OPM’s petition for review, the Board agreed with 

OPM that 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4) and 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(b) 

clearly dictate that “a court order issued after an annuitant’s retirement or death and modifying the first order 

dividing the marital property is not acceptable for processing.” S.A. 8–9. It therefore reversed the administrative judge’s ruling and affirmed OPM’s refusal to process 

Alan’s 2013 submission.

Alan appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1).

1 The administrative judge also thought it significant that the amended domestic relations order modifies 

the June 1995 domestic relations order and not the March 

1995 marital settlement agreement. Alan does not rely on 

that ground here, which in any event lacks merit. 

 

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/15/2015
CARTER v. OPM 5

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with the law; obtained in violation of procedures required by law, rule, or regulation; or unsupported 

by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Addison v. 

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1184, 1186 

(Fed. Cir. 1991).

We first reject Alan’s contention that the June 1995 

domestic relations order is ambiguous. The above-quoted 

language, from section 5 of the June 1995 order, is clear 

in providing for “the maximum possible former spouse 

survivor annuity” under the relevant federal retirement 

system. S.A. 68. Section 5 is entitled “former spouse 

survivor annuity”; it refers to 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(1); and it

is the only provision of the June 1995 order that addresses the “former spouse survivor annuity” at all, let alone 

with the clarity required by federal law. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8341(h)(1); see 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.101(a)(2), 838.912(c)(1). 

Although Alan cites other provisions of the June 1995 

order in arguing that the order is unclear, those provisions involve benefits other than a former spouse survivor 

annuity. 

Thus, only one provision of the June 1995 order addresses the subject, and it uses OPM’s own model language, see 5 C.F.R. part 838, subpart I, appendix A, 

paragraph 701, in providing for an award of “the maximum possible survivor annuity.” That language is unambiguous, certainly in the respect at issue here: Karen was 

awarded the maximum possible amount. And that language is determinative, and is not made unclear by any 

retirement booklets or annuity statements with inconsistent monthly contribution amounts that OPM may 

have sent to Alan. Reply Br. at 2; see Hayward v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., 578 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/15/2015
6 CARTER v. OPM

The Board correctly concluded that OPM was barred 

by statute and regulation from processing Alan’s change 

request based on the 2013 amended domestic relations 

order because that order modified the June 1995 order 

and, as is undisputed, it issued after Alan had already

retired. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4) provides: 

For purposes of this subchapter, a modification in 

a decree, order, agreement, or election referred to 

in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be effective— 

(A) if such modification is made after the retirement or death of the employee or Member concerned, and

(B) to the extent that such modification involves 

an annuity under this subsection.

OPM’s implementing regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(b),

adds:

For purposes of awarding, increasing, reducing, or 

eliminating a former spouse survivor annuity, or 

explaining, interpreting, or clarifying a court order that awards, increases, reduces or eliminates 

a former spouse survivor annuity, the court order 

must be— 

(1) Issued on a day prior to the date of retirement 

or date of death of the employee; or

(2) The first order dividing the marital property of 

the retiree and the former spouse.

The statute clearly states that a modification issued 

after the federal employee’s retirement is ineffective to 

the extent it involves a former spouse survivor annuity

like the one at issue here. The regulation states that such 

a modification must either be the first order dividing 

marital property or issue before the employee retires. 

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/15/2015
CARTER v. OPM 7

There is no substantive difference between the statute 

and regulation that is material to the present case.

Here, the March 2013 amended domestic relations order was not the first order dividing marital property. It 

followed the June 1995 order, which certainly divided 

marital property (putting aside what happened before 

June 1995). It was issued in March 2013, well after Alan

retired in October 2010. And it modified the June 1995 

order specifically regarding the annuity at issue. We have 

held, on facts similar to those involved in this case, that 

changing the former spouse survivor annuity from “the 

maximum possible” to the pro rata share earned during 

marriage is a modification under § 8341(h)(4) because it 

reduces the amount the former spouse is entitled to

receive. See Moran v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 310 F.3d 

1382, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002). And the conclusion 

stands even if the amended order’s substantive modification is deemed a “clarification.” 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(b)

(encompassing orders that explain or clarify an earlier 

order); Moran, 310 F.3d at 1385.2

Our conclusion is not altered by whether the Carters 

intended in 1995, or agree now, that Karen should receive 

a pro rata share of, rather than the maximum possible, 

survivor annuity. OPM’s role is limited to the essentially 

ministerial task of giving effect to the actual language of 

2 It is immaterial for the legal issue presented 

whether, as Alan asserts, the June 1995 order was an 

impermissible modification of the March 1995 marital 

settlement agreement. Pet. Br. at 6–7. In any event, the 

March 1995 marital settlement agreement expressly 

reserved issuing a later domestic relations order to divide 

federal retirement benefits. In this situation, the June 

1995 order, issued long before Alan’s retirement, was 

effective. See 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4); Vaccaro v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., 262 F.3d 1280, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

 

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 7 Filed: 09/15/2015
8 CARTER v. OPM

the domestic relations order. Moran, 310 F.3d at 1384. 

For the same reasons, OPM cannot be faulted for not 

evaluating the merits of Alan’s claim that the June 1995 

domestic relations order violated Missouri law. See 5 

C.F.R. § 838.101(a)(2); Perry v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 243 

F.3d 1337, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, the Board 

properly affirmed OPM’s refusal to consider the March 

2013 amended domestic relations order because it was 

issued too late to have the desired effect of modifying the 

June 1995 domestic relations order.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Board 

is affirmed.

No costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3137 Document: 18-2 Page: 8 Filed: 09/15/2015