UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

LAURA L. ZIENCIK,

Appellant,

v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER PH

- 0831

- 17

- 0327

- I

- 1

DATE: March 2, 2023



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Laura L. Ziencik , Berlin, Maryland, pro se.

Carla Robinson , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE Cathy A. Harris
, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon
, Member Tristan L. Leavitt , Member 2

FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
found that she was not entitled to survivor benefits under the Civil Service

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not require d to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c).

2 Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three

- member Board completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.2

Retirement System (CSRS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circum stances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or
the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115 ). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,
wh ich is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 (b). ¶2 We agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion in the initial decision that the appellant failed to meet her burden of proving by preponderant evidence
that she was entitled to survivor benefits under the CSRS

. 3 Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel Management
, 79 1 F.2d 138 , 140

- 41 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding that the burden of proving entitlement to a survivor annuity is on the applicant for benefits) ; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6, Initial Decision (ID)

. Specifically, the appellant did not d emonstrate that her no w

- deceased husband’s income was below
the earning limitation amount when the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM )
terminated his disability retirement annuity for regaining earning capacity, nor did she prove that this annuity was reinstated prior to his death. ID at 4

- 5; s ee White v. Office of Personnel Management
, 72 M.S.P.R. 672 , 674

- 75 (1996) (finding that a widow of a disabilit y annuitant was not entitled to a survivor

3 Preponderan t evidence is defined as t he degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 120 1.4 (q).3

annuity, as the annuitant regained earning capacity but died before having his disability annuity reinstated)

. Relatedly, the appellant’s husband did not file for a
deferred retirement annuity when he became elig ible at age 62, nor was he receiving any other benefit under the CSRS at the time of his death

. ID at 2

- 3; IAF, Tab 4 at 4

- 5; se e Dickerson v. Office of Personnel Management
, 47 M.S.P.R.
109 , 111, 11 3

- 1 4 (1991) (holding that the appellant was not entitled to a survivor annuity, as her former husband, who retir ed on a disability annuity and recovered, had not filed for his deferred annuity and was not receiving payments under the CSRS when he died)

. Lastly, there were no retirement deductions left in her husband’s account, meaning there was no lump sum payment to be made by OPM to the appellant , as the survivor, after her husband’s death . IAF, Tab 4 at 7, 9;

see 5 U.S.C. § 8342 (d); Narvasa v. Office of Personnel Management
, 47 M.S.P.R.
152 , 154 (1991). ¶3 The appellant alleges on review that she ha d power of attorney for her husband and could have signed an application for reinstatement of his annuity
when he was unable

. P etition for R eview (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4

. Th e appellant
did not raise this argument during the adjudication of her appeal before the administrative judge. The Board generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence. Banks v. Department of the Air Force
, 4 M.S.P.R. 268 , 271 (1980). There has been no showing of these circumstances here ; thus, we need not consider the appellant’s argument. Notwithstanding, as the initi al decision concludes, the appellant failed to meet her burden of proving that her husband was ever eligible
for and applied for reinstatement of his disability annuity after its termination in
2006. ID at 4

- 5. The appellant now claim ing that she possess ed power of attorney for him does not alter this outcome. Moreover, t he appellant cannot now
make an election for survivor benefits on behalf of her late husband. See Diehl v. Office of Personnel Management
, 50 M.S.P.R. 519 , 522 (1991) (holding that no4

election for a survivor annuity can be made after the death of the Federal employee ). ¶4 On review , the appellant also claims that her husband had his annuity
reinstated before he died and took less of an amount to provide for her. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. This is the same argument that the appellant set forth during her initial appeal and which the adm inistrative judge found that she failed to prove

. ID at 5; IAF, Tab 1 at 5. The appellant has not provided any evidence to support
her argument , and there is no basis to overturn the initial decision

. ¶5 The appellant also states on review that as th e Federal employee’s wife for 36 years, she is entitled to his annuity. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. However, the appellant’s deceased husband was not receiving an annuity at the time of his death. IAF, Tab 4 at 4

- 5 . It is well settled that the requirements f or eligibility for a retirement benefit are substantive legal requirements, meaning there is no room
for administrative dis cretion from OPM or the Board. Oliveros v. Office of Personnel Management
, 49 M.S.P.R. 360 , 363 (1991) , appeal dismissed
, 965 F.2d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 1992 ) (Table) ; see Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond
, 496 U.S. 414 , 416, 434 (1990) (holding that a Government employee’s erroneous
advice to a claimant for benefits did not entitle that claimant to benefits he otherwise would not have received, despite the claimant’s detrimental reliance on that mistaken advice). While we are sympathetic to the appellant’s situation, she has not proven that she was entitled to a CSRS benefit pursuant to any law or regulatio n.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4 You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (a)(1). By statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such

4 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.5

review and the ap propriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b). Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on whi ch option is most appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immedi ately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum. Please read carefully each of th e three main possible choices of review below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(A). If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2043 9 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within t he court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.6

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for informati on regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
(2 ) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action was based, in whole or in part, on unlawfu l discrimination. If so, you may obtain judicial review of this decision

— including a disposition of your discrimination
claims

— by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board
, 582 U.S.

____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative rece ives this decision before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national or igin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court

- appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5 (f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a

. Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

. Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues

. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). You must file an y such request with the7

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, and your rep resentative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision. If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EE OC is: Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960 Washington, D.C. 20013 If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, N.E. Suite 5SW12G Washington, D.C. 20507
(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8) or other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2 302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 The court of appeals must receive your pe tition for

5 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on8

review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(B). If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Cir cuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants b efore the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

July 7, 2 018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115

- 195, 132 Stat. 1510.9

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their respective websit es, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. /s/ for Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board