Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03143/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03143-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent
Velma Ruth Thomas
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

VELMA RUTH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________

2014-3143

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0841-13-0546-I-1.

______________________

Decided: January 13, 2015

______________________

VELMA RUTH THOMAS, of Stockbridge, Georgia, pro se. 

JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With 

him on the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, 

and KIRK T. MANHARDT, Assistant Director. Of counsel 

was JESSICA S. JOHNSON, Attorney-Advisor, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Office of Personnel Management, of Washington, DC.

Case: 14-3143 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2015
2 THOMAS v. OPM

______________________

Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Velma Ruth Thomas appeals from the decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the

decision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) 

that Thomas was entitled only to a supplemental annuity 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8468(b)(1)(A) (2012). Because we agree 

that Thomas should receive a supplemental annuity and 

not a redetermination of annuity rights upon her retirement, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Thomas began working for the United States Postal 

Service (“USPS”) on April 20, 1985. Thomas continued to 

work for the USPS until May 15, 1998, when she left the 

USPS and applied for disability retirement under the 

Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”). Thomas was 59 years old at the time she left the USPS.

Thomas received FERS disability annuity payments 

covering May 16, 1998 through December 18, 1999. In 

the letter notifying Thomas of the approval of her benefits, OPM informed Thomas that:

If your medical condition improves to the point 

you, and your physician, feel your disabling condition is resolved, you may ask us to review current 

medical evidence to determine if you have recovered. If you are found recovered from your disabling medical condition on your request, annuity 

payments will cease the month following the one 

in which the determination is effective.

Thomas then elected to receive disability benefits under the Office of Workers’ Compensation Program

(“OWCP”) in lieu of the FERS disability retirement annuiCase: 14-3143 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2015
THOMAS v. OPM 3

ty benefits, beginning on December 19, 1999. OPM suspended Thomas’s FERS annuity during the time she 

received OWCP benefits. Even though Thomas received 

OWCP benefits, OPM still considered Thomas to be a 

disability retirement annuitant. Thus, in 2000, when

Thomas turned 62 years old, OPM recomputed Thomas’s 

potential retirement benefits to an amount that represented an annuity she would have received if she had 

continued working until the day before her 62nd birthday, 

as required by 5 U.S.C. § 8452(b). 

On November 12, 2005, Thomas, at age 67, returned 

to work at the USPS. Thomas did not inform OPM that 

she had returned to work and did not request that OPM 

find she had recovered from her disability. 

Thomas continued to work with the USPS until she 

voluntarily retired on October 31, 2009, at age 71. At the 

time of her retirement, Thomas applied for credit for the 

time period during which she received OWCP benefits, 

and sought a redetermination of her annuity. OPM 

concluded that, because OPM never found that Thomas 

was recovered from her disability or restored to earning 

capacity after reemployment under 5 U.S.C. § 8455(a)(2), 

and because she was not reemployed for five years, she 

was not entitled to claim the time that she received 

OWCP benefits towards her annuity. OPM thus restored 

her prior annuity and added a supplemental annuity 

earned during her reemployment period. In response to 

Thomas’s request for reconsideration, OPM again concluded that Thomas was not restored to earning capacity

or administratively recovered under § 8455(a)(2), and was 

only eligible for a supplemental annuity for her 

reemployment period. 

Thomas appealed OPM’s reconsideration decision to 

the Board on May 13, 2013, claiming that she was entitled to an annuity covering the entire period from 1985–

2009, and was unaware that she had to inform OPM that 

Case: 14-3143 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2015
4 THOMAS v. OPM

she had returned to work in order to be eligible for redetermination of her annuity. In an initial decision, the 

Administrative Judge affirmed OPM’s determination. 

The Administrative Judge found that Thomas had been 

informed in the letter notifying Thomas of her benefits 

that she had to contact OPM upon her reemployment, 

and, regardless, any issue regarding notification “does not 

affect the outcome of this appeal.” Thomas v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., No. AT-0841-13-0546-I-1, 2014 MSPB LEXIS 

1861, at *5 n.4 (M.S.P.B. March 26, 2014). The Administrative Judge then concluded that Thomas was not eligible to have her annuity terminated by OPM at 

reemployment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8455 because that 

provision only applies to persons that recover from their 

disability or are restored to earning capacity before they 

are 60 years of age. Id. at *5. Section 8455 further does 

not apply to Thomas because, at the time of her 

reemployment, Thomas was no longer a disability retirement annuitant once OPM recalculated her annuity in 

2000. Id. at *6. The Administrative Judge therefore 

concluded that OPM correctly determined that Thomas 

was not eligible to have her annuity redetermined upon 

her retirement in 2009. Id. at *7.

The Board’s initial decision became final on April 30, 

2014. Thomas appealed to this Court on August 8, 2014, 

and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We must affirm a Board’s decision unless we find the 

decision to be: “(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). Thomas has 

the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

that she is entitled to the claimed retirement benefits. 

Case: 14-3143 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2015
THOMAS v. OPM 5

True v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 926 F.2d 1151, 1153 (Fed. 

Cir. 1991).

Thomas claims that the Board erred by failing to recognize the entirety of her service with the USPS, including the years when she received FERS or OWCP benefits. 

She also argues that the Board erred by not considering 

that the USPS found her to be employed for over twentyfour years, not merely the seventeen years recognized by 

OPM.1 In response, the government argues that the 

Board made no factual errors—Thomas’s reliance on a 

twenty-four year employment period requires recognition 

of 1998 to 2005 as a period of employment, which is a 

legal, not factual, determination. The government further 

argues that the Board correctly concluded that Thomas 

was not eligible for redetermination of her first annuity 

under either 5 U.S.C. § 8468(b) or 5 U.S.C. § 8455(a). 

We agree with the Board’s conclusion that Thomas is 

only entitled to a supplemental annuity for her 

reemployment period. Under 5 U.S.C. § 8468(b)(1)(A): 

If an annuitant . . . serves on a full-time basis for 

at least 1 year . . . the annuitant’s annuity on 

termination of reemployment shall be increased 

by an annuity computed under section 8415 (a) 

through (i) as may apply based on the period of 

reemployment and the basis pay, before deduction, averaged during reemployment.

 

1 Thomas filed a supplemental party letter with her 

2009 USPS Personal Statement of Benefits attached. The 

Personal Statement of Benefits showed her “Total Time” 

of “Creditable Service” to be over twenty-four years. As 

discussed infra, the Board did not err in upholding OPM’s 

calculation of Thomas’s annuity even in light of the 

USPS’s computation of “Creditable Service” time.

Case: 14-3143 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2015
6 THOMAS v. OPM

Employees like Thomas, who are reemployed for at least

one year, are therefore eligible for a supplemental annuity 

based on “the period of reemployment.” Id. Certain 

reemployed employees, however, may seek an alternative 

benefit under § 8468(b)(2)(A):

If an annuitant . . . serves on a full-time basis for 

at least 5 years, or on a part-time basis for periods 

equivalent to at least 5 years of full-time service, 

the annuitant may elect, instead of the benefit 

provided by paragraph (1), to have such annuitant’s rights redetermined under this chapter.

Under this provision, federal employees who have been 

reemployed for at least five years may seek a redetermination of their annuity rights in lieu of receiving a supplemental annuity covering their period of reemployment. 

Id.; see also True, 926 F.2d at 1153–54 (applying similar 

provision under the Civil Service Retirement Act). 

Federal employees may also seek to terminate their 

prior annuity rights through use of 5 U.S.C. § 8455(a). 

Under this provision, payment of an annuity terminates 

for “an annuitant receiving a disability retirement annuity” if the annuitant either “recovers from the disability 

before becoming 60 years of age,” id. § 8455(a)(1), or 

“before becoming 60 years of age, is restored to an earning 

capacity fairly comparable to the current rate of pay of the 

position occupied at the time of retirement,” id.

§ 8455(a)(2). 

Thomas is not eligible to seek a different annuity 

treatment under either of these statutory provisions. 

Thomas would not qualify for a redetermination under 

§ 8468(b)(2)(A) because she only served at the USPS for 

three years and eleven months during her reemployment, 

short of the five years required by statute. 

Furthermore, Thomas would not qualify to have her 

annuity status terminated under § 8455(a) because she

Case: 14-3143 Document: 20-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2015
THOMAS v. OPM 7

returned to work at the age of 67. Section 8455(a) requires that the employee be recovered or restored to a 

fairly comparable earning capacity “before becoming 60 

years of age.” If we assume that Thomas recovered or was 

restored to a fairly comparable earning capacity at the 

time she returned to work, she would not meet the statutory age requirement. 

Thomas also would not qualify under § 8455(a) because she was not a “disability retirement” annuitant at 

the time of her reemployment. Under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8452(b)(1), OPM must redetermine annuities of disability retirement annuitants once they reach 62 years of age. 

Upon that redetermination, the annuitant receives a basic 

annuity under 5 U.S.C. § 8415 rather than a disability 

retirement annuity. Once OPM redetermined Thomas’s 

annuity in 2000, she was no longer a disability retirement 

annuitant, and could no longer qualify for termination of 

the annuity under § 8455(a).2

Accordingly, we hold that the Board correctly determined that Thomas was not eligible for termination or a 

redetermination of her annuity, and that she was only 

eligible for a supplemental annuity covering her period of 

reemployment from 2005 to 2009, in addition to her prior 

annuity. We therefore affirm the Board’s decision upholding OPM’s calculation of Thomas’s annuity.

AFFIRMED

 

2 The fact that Thomas received OWCP benefits in 

lieu of FERS annuity payments does not change Thomas’s 

annuitant status. Hall v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 31 F.3d 

1176, at *2 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (unpublished opinion) (citing 

Strickler v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 51 M.S.P.R. 354, 358–59 

(1991)).

Case: 14-3143 Document: 20-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2015