NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

DANA REDETTE REDFIELD, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3008 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in AT0845100771-I-1. 

___________________________ 

Decided: March 14, 2011 

___________________________ 

DANA REDETTE REDFIELD, of Hixson, Tennessee, pro 

se. 

JEFFREY D. KLINGMAN, 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 DEBORAH A.

BYNUM, Assistant Director. Of counsel was WADE M.
REDFIELD v. OPM 2

PLUNKETT, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before BRYSON, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Dana Redette Redfield appeals a decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board dismissing her appeal because 

she voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement with 

the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Redfield worked for the United States Postal Service until March 2007 when she was separated from 

federal service. After her separation, she began receiving 

retirement annuity benefits. The retirement benefits 

were initially set at 60 percent of her “high-three” average 

salary, i.e., her average salary during the three years in 

which her annual salary was the highest. In May 2007, 

she became eligible for disability insurance benefits from 

the Social Security Administration. At that time, her 

retirement benefits should have been reduced to approximately 22 percent of her salary when she became eligible 

for disability benefits. OPM, however, did not adjust her 

retirement benefits until July 2009. OPM subsequently 

determined that Ms. Redfield had been overpaid in the 

amount of approximately $33,000 and would be required 

to refund the overpayment. 

In September 2009, Ms. Redfield requested that the 

OPM reconsider its decision. After reconsideration, OPM 

determined that its previous calculation was erroneous, 
3 REDFIELD v. OPM

and it corrected the amount of the overpayment to approximately $25,000. OPM ruled that Ms. Redfield could 

repay that amount by submitting a lump sum payment or 

by having her retirement benefits reduced by approximately $280 per month for 89 months. 

Ms. Redfield appealed OPM’s decision to the Board. 

She contended that she was not at fault for the overpayment, that requiring her to refund the overpayments 

would be against equity because it would cause her financial hardship, and that she had relied upon the overpayments to her detriment. Before the Board issued a 

decision in her appeal, however, Ms. Redfield and OPM 

informed the administrative judge that they had entered 

into a settlement agreement. The terms of the agreement 

were read into the record of the Board proceedings. Ms. 

Redfield agreed to “withdraw her appeal” of the Board’s 

reconsideration decision and to “resolve this matter 

without further administrative appeal or litigation.” She 

agreed to repay approximately $25,000 by having her 

retirement benefits reduced by $50 per month for 495 

months and by $21 for one month. Ms. Redfield orally 

agreed to all of the settlement terms. She also represented to the administrative judge that she understood 

the agreement, that she was entering into the agreement 

voluntarily, and that she was requesting that her appeal 

be withdrawn in light of the agreement. 

The administrative judge issued a decision dismissing 

the appeal on the basis of the settlement agreement. 

After that decision became final, Ms. Redfield petitioned 

for review by this court. 
REDFIELD v. OPM 4

DISCUSSION

Ms. Redfield appeals the dismissal of her case on substantive grounds without alleging any defect in the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement, however, 

bars her from obtaining relief unless the settlement 

agreement can be set aside. A settlement agreement can 

be set aside only if “the agreement is unlawful, was 

involuntary, or was the result of fraud or mutual mistake.” Sargent v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 229 

F.3d 1088, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Ms. Redfield does not 

make any showing that the agreement was flawed in any 

of those respects. Instead, she contends that she should 

be granted relief from the repayment obligation that she 

agreed to in the settlement agreement because her income 

is low and her expenses are high. Those contentions, 

however, do not provide a basis for finding the settlement 

agreement unlawful and releasing her from the terms of 

the agreement to which she consented. She also contends 

that she did not know the Social Security Administration 

would award her disability benefits. That contention 

similarly fails to provide any reason to question the 

validity of the settlement agreement. Appellants who 

challenge the validity of a settlement agreement bear a 

“heavy burden” in establishing that the settlement was 

improper. Tiburzi v. Dep’t of Justice, 269 F.3d 1346, 1355 

(Fed. Cir. 2001). Because Ms. Redfield has not shown any 

reason to set aside the settlement agreement, we affirm 

the administrative judge’s dismissal of her appeal. 

No costs. 

AFFIRMED