Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03211/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Malone
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Office of Personnel Management
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.

______________________ 

2014-3211

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-0831-14-0311-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 4, 2015

______________________ 

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

TREYER AUSTIN MASON-GALE, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 14-3211 Document: 27-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2015
2 MALONE v. MSPB

Petitioner Ralph Malone appeals a decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) dismissing Mr. 

Malone’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The MSPB found 

that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had not 

yet ruled on Mr. Malone’s motion for reconsideration of its 

initial decision denying Mr. Malone’s application for a 

redetermination of his retirement annuity, so there was 

no appealable final decision from OPM. The MSPB also 

found that OPM had not constructively denied Mr. 

Malone a final decision. Because we agree that the MSPB 

lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Malone’s appeal, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

Whether the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate a 

case on appeal is a question of law, which we review de 

novo. See Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 

(Fed. Cir. 1995). Although we may review the Board’s 

conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction, we are bound by the 

administrative judge’s factual determinations “unless 

those findings are not supported by substantial evidence.” 

Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed.

Cir. 1998).

The MSPB has jurisdiction over appeals from “final 

decision[s] of the . . . Office of Personnel Management” 

“affecting the rights or interests of an individual . . . .” 5 

C.F.R. § 831.110; 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1). Decisions of the 

OPM are final when they are rendered on reconsideration 

or expressly issued as final decisions. 5 C.F.R. § 831.109.

However, an exception to the final decision requirement exists where OPM has constructively denied an 

individual the opportunity to receive a final decision. 

Typically, constructive denial occurs where OPM neglects

to inform the petitioner of the right to seek reconsideration of a retirement application decision, see Richards v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 29 M.S.P.R. 310, 312 (1985), improperly denies an opportunity for reconsideration, see 

Phillips v. Veterans Admin., 21 M.S.P.R. 409, 412 (1984), 

Case: 14-3211 Document: 27-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2015
MALONE v. MSPB 3

or fails to issue a decision within a reasonable time, see

Okello v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 120 M.S.P.R. 498, 502–504

(2014). In determining whether there has been constructive denial of a final decision, the MSPB considers OPM’s 

express representations regarding the allegedly forthcoming decision, as well as a litigant’s diligence in requesting 

a decision. Id. at 503.

Turning to the facts of this case, after OPM issued an 

initial decision denying Mr. Malone’s application, Mr. 

Malone requested reconsideration on July 15, 2013. Mr. 

Malone does not dispute—and did not dispute at the 

MSPB—that OPM has not rendered an opinion on his 

motion for reconsideration. It is also undisputed that 

OPM properly informed Mr. Malone of his right to request 

reconsideration and that OPM did not improperly deny 

Mr. Malone an opportunity for reconsideration. Therefore, the only issue presented by this appeal is whether 

OPM constructively denied Mr. Malone a final decision by 

failing to issue a decision on Mr. Malone’s reconsideration 

motion within a reasonable time.

We find that Mr. Malone has not been constructively 

denied a final decision. This case is most similar to Nava 

v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 94-3424, 1994 WL 

623989 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10 1994). In Nava, the petitioner 

“filed one request for reconsideration and waited approximately five months before filing an appeal.” Id. at *1. 

OPM also represented to the MSPB that it intended to 

issue a final decision on the petitioner’s request for reconsideration. Id. This court affirmed the MSPB’s dismissal 

for lack of jurisdiction. Id. 

Here, Mr. Malone requested reconsideration of OPM’s 

initial decision and appealed to the MSPB after nine 

months passed without a decision. The MSPB credited 

OPM’s representations that it intended to issue a decision 

on Mr. Malone’s request for reconsideration, and noted 

that Mr. Malone had not inquired about the status of his 

Case: 14-3211 Document: 27-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2015
4 MALONE v. MSPB

reconsideration request before filing an appeal. This 

court has previously found that a sixteen-month delay did 

not amount to a constructive denial of a final decision. 

See McNeese v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 61 M.S.P.B. 70, 74 

(1994), aff’d, 40 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1994). No other 

circumstances indicate that OPM does not intend to issue 

a final decision in Mr. Malone’s case. See Okello, 120 

M.S.P.R. 498, 502–504 (finding that a six year pendency 

with no decision despite petitioner’s diligence in seeking a 

final decision was a constructive denial); Easter v. Office 

of Pers. Mgmt., 102 M.S.P.R. 568, 571 (2006) (holding that 

an eighteen-month delay with no acknowledgment of 

petitioner’s application was constructive denial). Mr. 

Malone may appeal the substantive merits of his case 

once OPM issues a final decision. For the time being, 

though, we affirm the MSPB’s dismissal of Mr. Malone’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 14-3211 Document: 27-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/04/2015