NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-3269 

 ANITA L. ALFORD, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

Anita L. Alford, of Baltimore, Maryland, pro se. 

Gregg M. Schwind, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on 

the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, 

and Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director. Of counsel were Allison Kidd-Miller, Trial 

Attorney; and Wade M. Plunkett, Office of Personnel Management, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-3269 

ANITA L. ALFORD, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

 Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in PH844E080616-I-1. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: January 11, 2010 

 __________________________ 

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Anita L. Alford (“Alford”) petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the denial of her application for disability 

retirement benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). Alford v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. PH844E080616-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 24, 2008) (“Final 

Decision”). Because the Board did not substantially depart from any important 

procedural right, misconstrue governing legislation, or commit any like error going to the 

heart of the administrative determination, we affirm. 

Alford worked as a Claims Assistant for the Social Security Administration from 

September 13, 1982 to February 15, 2007, when she was removed from her position. A 
major portion of her duties as a Claims Assistant included typing. Shortly before her 

removal, she filed an application for disability retirement benefits with the Office of 

Personnel Management (“OPM”). She claimed that she was permanently disabled due 

to arthritis, depression, anxiety, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, sinus 

problems, menstrual cramps, chronic bronchitis, dizziness, and a tumor. OPM denied 

her application on January 14, 2008, finding that her medical conditions were not 

disabling. She requested reconsideration and submitted a number of additional 

documents. OPM denied the request for reconsideration on May 22, 2008, addressing 

each of the documents she submitted and concluding that OPM’s initial decision was 

correct. 

She appealed OPM’s decision to the Board. After conducting a hearing, the 

Board issued an initial decision in which it concluded that, although she suffers from 

various medical conditions, those conditions are not disabling. Alford v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., No. PH844E080616-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 15, 2009) (“Initial Decision”). She 

petitioned the full Board to review the Initial Decision. The full Board denied the petition 

for review because the petition did not establish error affecting her substantive rights. 

However, the Board reopened the appeal on its own motion because the Initial Decision 

adjudicated her case under the legal standard of the Federal Employees’ Retirement 

System (“FERS”) rather than CSRS. Nevertheless, because the legal standard for 

establishing a disabling condition is substantively identical under both FERS and CSRS, 

the full Board affirmed the Initial Decision as modified. Final Decision at 4. This appeal 

followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2006). 

2009-3269 2 
2009-3269 3 

Our authority to review the Board’s decision is limited. “This court is without 

authority to review the substantive merits of disability determinations, or the factual 

underpinnings of such determinations.” Brunner v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 996 F.2d 290, 

291 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, “[t]his court’s review of disability-based actions is limited 

to determining whether there has been a substantial departure from important 

procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like error 

going to the heart of the administrative determination.” Id. at 292 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Alford argues that the Board failed to consider “all the facts,” and generally 

references “medical reports from all doctors.” Petr.’s Informal Br. ¶ 2. But she has not 

identified any particular report that she believes the Board failed to consider. The Board 

specifically reviewed the medical reports of Drs. Bousel, Roby, and Rosen. Initial 

Decision at 4-7. These appear to be all of the medical reports that were submitted to 

the OPM. 

Alford also challenges the Board’s factual determination that her medical 

conditions were not in fact disabling. We cannot address the Board’s factual 

assessment of the extent of her disability as we are “without authority to review the 

substantive merits of disability determinations, or the factual underpinnings of such 

determinations.” Brunner, 996 F.2d at 291. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Board. 

COSTS 

No costs.