Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03203/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03203-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Army
Respondent
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Marshann Terwilliger
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARSHANN TERWILLIGER,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3203

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-3443-15-0037-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 4, 2016

______________________ 

 MARSHANN TERWILLIGER, Moncks Corner, SC, pro se.

 KATRINA LEDERER, Merit Systems Protection Board, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3203 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2016
2 TERWILLIGER v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Marshann Terwilliger (“Terwilliger”) appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (“Board”) dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Terwilliger v. Dep’t of the Army, No. AT-3443-15-

0037-I-1, 2015 MSPB LEXIS 5904, *6 (M.S.P.B. July 6, 

2015). For the reasons below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Terwilliger resigned from her position at the Department of the Army (“Agency”) on June 20, 1991, after 

almost thirteen years of service. Following her resignation, she obtained a refund of her retirement deductions 

from the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”). The 

Agency rehired Terwilliger on October 4, 2004. Terwilliger filed an application to redeposit the retirement 

deductions previously refunded to her and began repaying 

those contributions. In 2006, she received Benefit Estimates from the Agency erroneously indicating that she 

had been given credit for the period of service covered by 

her retirement deductions. She was then advised by OPM 

and the Agency that it was in her best interest to take an 

actuarial reduction of her unpaid retirement deductions 

when she retired, rather than continue to repay the 

deductions with interest. Terwilliger heeded the advice 

and stopped making payments. 

Terwilliger was later informed that the earlier advice 

she received was erroneous and that she would not actually receive credit for the period of service covered by her 

refunded retirement deductions unless she repaid those

deductions with interest prior to retirement. What followed is a series of claims and appeals by Terwilliger 

regarding her repayment of the refunded retirement 

deductions. 

Terwilliger requested that OPM waive the interest on 

her repayment, arguing that a substantial portion of that 

Case: 15-3203 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2016
TERWILLIGER v. MSPB 3

interest had accrued as a result of the incorrect advice she 

had received. OPM denied that request on June 27, 2012. 

On September 11, 2012, OPM issued another decision 

confirming that Terwilliger would have to redeposit her 

contributions before retiring to receive credit in her 

annuity for the period of service covered by the refunded 

decisions. After OPM issued a final decision denying 

Terwilliger’s request for reconsideration of its June 27, 

2012 decision, Terwilliger appealed to the Board. On 

June 6, 2013, the Board affirmed OPM’s reconsideration 

decision. The Board noted, however, that Terwilliger also 

sought permission to repay the redeposit and interest via 

the actuarial reduction she earlier had been advised to 

employ and remanded her claim to OPM directing it to 

consider that issue. On September 23, 2013, OPM issued 

a new reconsideration decision once more denying the 

appellant’s request to pay the balance of her redeposit 

and interest by actuarial reduction. 

Terwilliger then filed a petition for review of the 

Board’s June 6, 2013 decision. In an August 20, 2014 

decision, the Board denied the petition, finding no error 

by the administrative judge. The Board found that the 

payment of interest on a redeposit of retirement deductions is a statutory requirement under 5 U.S.C. § 

8334(d)(1). The Board also determined that, due to the 

Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, it could not 

waive the requirement based on the fact that she had 

received faulty advice or on other equitable considerations. See Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 

414, 422 (1990) (holding that the government cannot be 

forced to pay monetary benefits to an applicant who is 

statutorily ineligible for the benefits, even if the applicant 

became ineligible due to reliance on the misadvice of a 

federal employee). 

The Board also forwarded the petition for review to 

the Atlanta Regional Office for docketing as an appeal of 

OPM’s September 23, 2013 reconsideration decision. On 

Case: 15-3203 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2016
4 TERWILLIGER v. MSPB

February 10, 2015, the Atlanta Regional Office affirmed 

OPM’s decision, citing 5 U.S.C. § 8334(d)(1). 

Finally, Terwilliger filed an appeal with the Atlanta 

Regional Office seeking to require the Agency to pay the 

redeposit of retirement contributions and interest to the 

OPM on her behalf. Terwilliger, 2015 MSPB LEXIS 5904, 

at *1. After providing the parties with notice of a question as to the Board’s jurisdiction and providing them an 

opportunity to submit argument and evidence, the Regional Office of the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. The Board noted that the Agency did not 

dispute the underlying facts and admits that its misadvice created this problem. Nevertheless, the Board found 

no law, rule, or regulation permitting Terwilliger to bring 

the appeal against the Agency. This appeal arises from 

that decision. 

DISCUSSION

The court must affirm the decision of the Board unless it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion 

or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained 

without following the procedures required by law; or (3)

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

Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 

1995). We review whether the Board has jurisdiction de 

novo as a question of law, but review underlying factual 

findings for substantial evidence. Johnston v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Bolton v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary, but rather is 

limited to matters over which it has been granted jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation. Van Wersch v. Dep’t of 

Health and Human Serv., 197 F.3d 1144, 1147 (Fed. Cir. 

1999); Maddox v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 759 F.2d 9, 10 

(Fed. Cir. 1985). The appellant bears the burden of 

establishing the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance 

Case: 15-3203 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/04/2016
TERWILLIGER v. MSPB 5

of the evidence. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i) (2015); Fields 

v. Dep’t of Justice, 452 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

On appeal, Terwilliger has not alleged a single error, 

legal or factual, in the Board’s decision rejecting her 

request for the Agency to redeposit her missing retirement contributions to OPM on her behalf. In fact, her 

informal brief concedes that the Board has not incorrectly 

decided or failed to take into account any facts, applied 

incorrect law, or failed to consider important grounds for 

relief. Rather, Terwilliger simply implores us to “make a 

decision on [her] hardship.” 

We are sympathetic to appellant’s plight. She relied 

on advice from her employing agency and OPM to her 

detriment. Nevertheless, we are not aware of any legal 

authority that permits Terwilliger to bring the appeal of 

her claim against the Agency to the Board. The Board 

has jurisdiction over appeals of adverse actions, which 

include removals or terminations of employment after 

completion of probationary or other initial service periods, 

involuntary resignations or retirements, reductions in 

grade or pay, suspensions for more than 14 days, or

furloughs for 30 days or less for cause that will promote 

the efficiency of the service. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-7514; 5 

C.F.R. 1201.3(a)(1). The Board also has jurisdiction to 

review OPM’s final reconsideration decisions of retirement and annuity claims. See 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(1). 

Terwilliger does not allege that her most recent appeal 

falls within any of these categories. Notably, the decision 

on appeal is not the August 20, 2014 decision on waiver of 

interest or the February 10, 2015 decision on the actuarial reduction issue, but rather is the July 6, 2015 decision 

on Terwilliger’s request that the Agency pay OPM on 

Terwilliger’s behalf. We further note that, at this point, 

Terwilliger has had her requests as to the underlying 

redeposit requirement heard no less than six times. 

Despite her understandable frustration, Terwilliger has 

Case: 15-3203 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/04/2016
6 TERWILLIGER v. MSPB

not met her burden to establish that the Board erred in 

dismissing her appeal. We, therefore, affirm. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3203 Document: 25-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/04/2016