UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

ANTONIETA GARCIA,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

CH-844E-19-0212-I-1

DATE: October 5, 2022

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Leah Bachmeyer Kille, Lexington, Kentucky, for the appellant. 

Albert Pete Alston, Jr., Washington, D.C., for the agency. 

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review 

and the appellant has filed a cross petition for review of the initial decision, 

which reversed OPM’s reconsideration decision denying the appellant’s disability 

retirement application but denied interim relief. On petition for review, OPM 

 

1A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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 

required 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

argues that the administrative judge erred in applying the Bruner2presumption, in 

finding that it failed to rebut the presumption, and in finding that the appellant’s 

last position with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) was as a Distribution Clerk. 

Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 11-17. OPM includes with its petition 

for review several Postal Service 50 (PS-50) forms. Id. at 19-136. Additionally, 

the appellant’s cross petition for review requests interim relief. PFR File, Tab 3 

at 9-10. Generally, we grant petitions such as these only in the following 

circumstances: 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 neither party has 

established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition or cross 

petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the agency’s petition for review and 

the appellant’s cross petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which 

is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).3 

 

2

In Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, our reviewing court found that an 

employee’s removal for inability to perform the essential functions of her position 

constitutes prima facie evidence that she is entitled to disability retirement. 996 F.2d 

290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

3

The additional PS-50s submitted for the first time on review do not provide a basis to 

disturb the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 1 at 19-136. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the 

Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with a petition 

for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the record closed before the 

administrative judge despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 

3 M.S.P.R. 211, 213-14 (1980). All of the PS-50s appear to have been issued before the 

close of the record below. PFR File, Tab 1 at 19-136. OPM has not explained why it 
3

¶2 Based on the Postal Service form 6075, Notice of Removal or Separation 

for Disability (Not OWCP), and the appellant’s hearing testimony that, following 

a 1-year recovery period from a March 2015 surgery, her physician imposed 

restrictions and advised her not to return to work and that the appellant informed 

her supervisor of the restrictions and remained away from work only after her 

supervisor informed her that there were no available accommodations or 

reassignments, the administrative judge correctly found that the Bruner

presumption applies in this case. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 31, Initial 

Decision (ID) at 3-5. 

¶3 The administrative judge also found that the appellant’s last position with 

the USPS was as a Distribution Clerk and that her medical conditions are 

incompatible with useful and efficient service or retention in the Distribution 

Clerk position. ID at 5-6, 9. However, the appellant stipulated that her last 

official position with USPS was as a Sales Service/Distribution Associate 

(SSDA). IAF, Tab 24 at 4. A stipulation is sufficient to prove the fact alleged. 

Swift v. Office of Personnel Management, 48 M.S.P.R. 441, 445 (1991); 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.63. Nonetheless, the administrative judge ultimately considered both the 

positions of a Distribution Clerk and a SSDA in arriving at her conclusion. 

ID at 5-6, 9. Moreover, the appellant and her supervisor both testified that the 

positions have some overlapping duties. IAF, Tab 25, Hearing Compact Disc 

(testimony of the appellant and the appellant’s supervisor). We have reviewed 

the medical evidence of record and the requirements of the SSDA position, as set 

forth in the position description and the testimony of the appellant and her 

supervisor, and we conclude that the appellant is unable to provide useful and 

efficient service in the SSDA position. Thus, any error committed by the 

 

was unable to submit these documents below nor has it shown that they are of sufficient 

weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision. Accordingly, 

we have not considered them. See Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 

349 (1980). 
4

administrative judge in determining that the appellant’s last position with the 

USPS was as a Distribution Clerk, and not a SSDA, did not prejudice OPM and 

does not constitute a basis to disturb the initial decision. See Panter v.

Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding that an 

adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides 

no basis for reversal of an initial decision). Additionally, we agree with her 

conclusion that OPM failed to rebut the Bruner presumption and that the 

appellant otherwise met all of the elements required to secure disability 

retirement benefits. ID at 7-9; see 5 C.F.R. § 844.103(a). 

¶4 In her response to OPM’s petition for review, the appellant requested

interim relief. PFR File, Tab 3 at 9-10. The Board’s regulations do not provide 

for an award of interim relief at the petition for review level. To the extent the 

appellant is asserting that the administrative judge erred in declining to award 

interim relief below, ID at 10, the Board reviews such a claim under an abuse of 

discretion standard. See, e.g., Norton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

112 M.S.P.R. 248, ¶ 8 (2009). In Steele v. Office of Personnel Management, the 

Board held that, although the interim relief statutory provisions are applicable to 

OPM retirement appeals, administrative judges should exercise caution in 

granting interim relief in such appeals because doing so may result in OPM’s 

payment of monies in contravention of its statutory authority and may necessitate 

OPM’s recovery of the monies paid during the interim relief period if the Board 

reverses the initial decision. 57 M.S.P.R. 458, 461-64 (1993), aff’d, 50 F.3d 21 

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (Table). 

¶5 In this case, it is not necessary to determine whether the administrative 

judge abused her discretion because we otherwise agree with her decision to 

reverse OPM’s reconsideration decision and to order OPM to approve the 

appellant’s disability retirement application. Therefore, by way of this Order, the 

appellant will already receive all of the relief to which she is entitled.
5

ORDER

We ORDER OPM to grant the appellant’s application for disability 

retirement benefits. OPM must complete this action no later than 20 days after 

the date of this decision. 

We also ORDER OPM to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it 

believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has t aken 

to carry out the Board’s Order. We ORDER the appellant to provide all 

necessary information OPM requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. The 

appellant, if not notified, should ask OPM about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.181(b). 

No later than 30 days after OPM tells the appellant that it has fully carried 

out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the 

office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that 

OPM did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition should contain 

specific reasons why the appellant believes OPM has not fully carried out the 

Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications 

with OPM. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO 

REQUEST ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney 

fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of 

the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The 

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If 

you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees 

and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. 

You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued 

the initial decision on your appeal. 
6

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS4

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 

review and the appropriate 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 which 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 

immediately 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 the 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: 

 

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. 
7

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 partic ular 

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 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 unlawful 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 receives 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 origin, or a disabling 

condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and 
8

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 any such request with the 

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 representative 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 EEOC 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 
9

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in 

section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(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 

petition for 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 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. 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 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. 

 

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 on 

July 7, 2018, 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. 
10

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their 

respective websites, 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