NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

ANNIE M. WOODSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2010-3141 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. CH0831090822-I-1. 

__________________________ 

Decided: May 2, 2011 

__________________________ 

T. LEE BOYD, JR., The Boyd Law Firm, P.C., of Chicago, Illinois, for petitioner. 

HILLARY A. STERN, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial 

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

her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney 

General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and BRIAN M.

SIMKIN, Assistant Director. 
WOODSON v. OPM 2

__________________________ 

Before LOURIE, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PROST, Circuit Judge. 

Petitioner Annie M. Woodson (“Ms. Woodson”) appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), Docket No. CH0831090822-I-1, 

affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) 

reconsideration determination denying Ms. Woodson’s 

request for survivor annuity benefits. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Woodson is the surviving widow of Robert J. 

Woodson, an employee of the United States Postal Service 

from 1945–1974. On December 2, 1974, Mr. Woodson 

submitted his retirement application and elected to 

receive an annuity without survivor benefits. Mr. 

Woodson confirmed this election by signing a separate 

document which stated, in part, “I still elect to receive an 

annuity payable only during my lifetime with no survivor 

annuity payable after death.” Mr. Woodson received full 

life rate annuity payments until his death on November 

10, 1979. 

On January 9, 2008, Ms. Woodson applied to retroactively receive survivor annuity benefits based on Mr. 

Woodson’s thirty years of government service. Ms. 

Woodson explained that she and her late husband had 

lived together for more than thirty years and that they 

did not realize that survivor annuity benefits had not 

been elected. She further indicated that at the time of his 

retirement, Mr. Woodson did not understand the documents he signed because he was focused on his cancer 

diagnosis. Ms. Woodson—herself suffering from a central 
3 WOODSON v. OPM

nervous system disorder—sought to change her husband’s 

election to receive survivor annuity benefits to which she 

believed she was entitled. 

On July 23, 2009, OPM issued a decision regarding 

Ms. Woodson’s request for reconsideration of the initial 

denial of survivor annuity benefits. OPM maintained its 

denial of benefits, reasoning that Mr. Woodson had failed 

to elect to provide his surviving spouse with benefits. Ms. 

Woodson appealed this decision to the Board. 

On November 13, 2009, an administrative judge affirmed OPM’s reconsideration decision denying survivor 

annuity benefits to Ms. Woodson. The administrative 

judge reasoned that undisputed evidence showed that Mr. 

Woodson elected to receive a full, unreduced annuity in 

lieu of providing survivor benefits to his spouse. The 

administrative judge further noted that the statute in 

effect at the time of Mr. Woodson’s retirement did not 

require that his spouse receive notice of, or consent to, his 

election. The full board denied Ms. Woodson’s petition for 

review. Ms. Woodson appealed and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

“Our review of Board decisions is limited. We may 

only reverse a Board decision if we find the decision to be 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures 

required by law; or unsupported by substantial evidence.” 

Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 618 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)). 

Ms. Woodson argues that, under the Fifth Amendment, her due process rights were violated when the 
WOODSON v. OPM 4

Board applied the version of 5 U.S.C. § 8341(b)(1) in effect 

at the time of her husband’s retirement. Though that 

statute vested with the government employee the right to 

decline spousal survivor annuity benefits, Ms. Woodson 

contends that Congress’s amendments after Mr. 

Woodson’s death evince its intent to require notice and 

consent before depriving a spouse of their property right 

in a survivor annuity benefit. Thus, she argues that the 

Board erred because she cannot be denied a right that 

Congress admitted was in existence, yet failed to acknowledge until it amended the statute in 1980 and 1984. 

See Act of Oct. 7, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96–391, 94 Stat. 1557; 

Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984, Pub. 

L. No. 98–615, 98 Stat. 3195. Ms. Woodson also contends 

that the amendments to § 8341 required that her husband 

receive notice allowing him to change his annuity election, 

which he did not receive. She further asserts that the 

Board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of 

discretion since its opinion does not address her constitutional claim. 

The government responds, contending that the Board 

was correct and that Ms. Woodson’s claim of a property 

right in her husband’s annuity is unfounded based on the 

statute in effect at the time of his retirement and this 

court’s prior interpretation of that statute. See Roebling 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 788 F.2d 1544, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 

1986). The government also argues that Ms. Woodson 

cannot receive the benefit of later amendments to § 8341 

because under Roebling, those amendments were prospective only. It further contends that no notice to Mr. 

Woodson was required by the amendments to § 8341. 

We agree with the government that Roebling controls 

the outcome of this case under the facts presented. Under 

the version of 5 U.S.C. § 8341(b)(1) in effect at the time of 
5 WOODSON v. OPM

Mr. Woodson’s retirement, the right to elect a spousal 

survivor benefit was that of the government employee 

only. See Roebling, 788 F.2d at 1546–48. Further, the 

rights of notice and consent to a spouse before a government employee can elect to forgo a spousal survivor 

annuity—which were created by statute after Mr. 

Woodson’s retirement—are prospective. Id. at 1548. 

Thus, Ms. Woodson does not have a right to elect a survivor annuity benefit by virtue of Congress’s amendments 

to the statute after her husband’s retirement. Likewise, 

Mr. Woodson was not a member of the limited categories 

of individuals required to receive notice under the 

amendments to § 8341. See H.R. Rep. No. 1054, 98th 

Cong., 2d Sess. 26-28, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. 

& Ad. News 5540, 5557–58. 

CONCLUSION

Because the statute in effect at the time of Mr. 

Woodson’s retirement did not grant a government employee’s spouse with the rights of notice and consent, Ms. 

Woodson’s constitutional and various other claims are 

without merit. The Board’s decision is supported by 

substantial evidence and not otherwise reversible. 

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs. 

AFFIRMED