NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

LAURA A. HUNT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3001 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Case No. CH0831090791-C-1. 

AND

__________________________ 

LAURA A. HUNT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3154 

__________________________ 
HUNT v. MSPB 2

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Case No. CH0831100708-I-1. 

___________________________ 

Decided: March 27, 2012 

___________________________ 

LAURA A. HUNT, of Chicago, Illinois, pro se. 

CALVIN M. MORROW, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, 

DC, for respondent Merit Systems Protection Board in 

appeal no. 2011-3001. With him on the brief were JAMES M.

EISENMANN, General Counsel, and KEISHA DAWN BELL, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

WILLIAM J. GRIMALDI, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent Officer of Personnel Management in appeal no. 2011-3154. With him on 

the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, 

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM, 

Assistant Director. 

__________________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

These appeals have been consolidated for review, both 

appeals arising from decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning decisions of the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) relating to Ms. Hunt’s 
3 HUNT v. MSPB

retirement annuity.1 We discern no reversible error in the 

agency rulings presented on these appeals. The record does 

not show whether any issues remain unresolved, particularly Ms. Hunt’s request to redeposit her retirement deductions. We remand to the MSPB for consideration of this 

issue, in the event that it is unresolved. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Hunt commenced employment with the Postal Service in 1964, and served a total of over twelve years. She 

experienced an on-the-job injury in May 1984. OPM denied 

her request for disability retirement based on this injury, 

and the MSPB affirmed on May 16, 1986. Her appeal to 

this court from that decision was dismissed as untimely 

filed. Hunt v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 838 F.2d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 

1988) (Table). 

Ms. Hunt began receiving a retirement annuity on May 

29, 2000, when she reached age sixty-two, in the reported 

amount of $288 per month. On January 22, 2002 OPM 

notified Ms. Hunt that her annuity had been adjusted to 

$313 per month, based on supplemental information concerning her salary. The record mentions ensuing cost-ofliving increases, to about $400 per month. 

On June 1, 2008 Ms. Hunt requested review of OPM’s 

2002 recalculation of her annuity. On May 15, 2009 OPM 

dismissed this request as untimely. On June 17, 2009 Ms. 

Hunt appealed this dismissal to the MSPB. On August 13, 

2009 OPM rescinded its May 15, 2009 dismissal, stating 

that OPM would issue a new decision concerning its 2002 

recalculation because the 2002 decision had not advised Ms. 

 1 Hunt v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 114 M.S.P.R. 590 

(2010); Hunt v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., CH0831100708-I-1 

(M.S.P.B. Mar. 21, 2011). 
HUNT v. MSPB 4

Hunt of her right to request reconsideration and the time 

period for filing such a request. On September 1, 2009 OPM 

issued a new decision concerning Ms. Hunt’s annuity, 

stating that the recalculation of $313 in 2002 was correct, 

and also stating that the “annual actuarial reduction for 

unpaid redeposit” was $240. On September 16, 2009 Ms. 

Hunt requested reconsideration by OPM of its September 1, 

2009 decision. 

On October 9, 2009 the Administrative Judge (AJ) dismissed Ms. Hunt’s appeal filed June 17, 2009 for “lack of 

jurisdiction,” stating that “OPM rescinded its reconsideration decision. Absent a final decision . . . the Board lacks 

jurisdiction over the matters appealed.” Hunt v. Office Pers. 

Mgmt., CH08310791-I-1, at 2 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 9, 2009). 

OPM’s response to the September 16, 2009 request for 

reconsideration was not speedily forthcoming, and on May 

27, 2010 Ms. Hunt filed a “petition for enforcement” with 

the MSPB, stating that OPM violated the AJ’s October 9, 

2009 dismissal by not issuing a new decision. On June 11, 

2010 the AJ denied the petition for enforcement on its 

merits, stating that OPM was in compliance with the AJ’s 

October 9, 2009 decision because OPM had issued a new 

decision on September 1, 2009. Ms. Hunt filed a petition for 

review with the full MSPB, and on August 24, 2010 the 

Board on its own motion vacated the AJ’s decision of June 

11, 2010, and dismissed the petition for enforcement for lack 

of jurisdiction. The Board held that the AJ erred in ruling 

on the merits of Ms. Hunt’s petition for enforcement because 

the MSPB had no jurisdiction of the underlying appeal 

because the OPM had rescinded its decision, thus divesting 

the MSPB of jurisdiction because there was no final decision 

by OPM. Hunt, 114 M.S.P.R. at 592 (“Because the appellant’s appeal of OPM’s original reconsideration decision was 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the appellant’s petition for 
5 HUNT v. MSPB

enforcement of the initial decision in that appeal should also 

have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”). Ms. Hunt 

appealed that dismissal to this court on October 4, 2010; the 

appeal was docketed as No. 2011-3001, was briefed by Ms. 

Hunt and the MSPB, and on July 6, 2011 was submitted for 

our decision. 

Meanwhile, on June 1, 2010 OPM issued a final decision 

denying Ms. Hunt’s request for reconsideration of the 2002 

annuity recalculation. On June 9, 2010 Ms. Hunt appealed 

this decision to the MSPB, stating that she was entitled to 

compensation for her 1984 injury, and asking that she be 

permitted to redeposit the $3,355 in retirement contributions that she had withdrawn in 1969. On October 1, 2010 

the AJ ruled that OPM correctly determined Ms. Hunt’s 

annuity, and did not decide the question of redeposit on its 

merits. The full Board denied review, and Ms. Hunt appealed to this court. The appeal was docketed as No. 2011-

3154, was briefed by Ms. Hunt and OPM, and was submitted for decision on August 23, 2011. We have combined the 

appeals. 

The Annuity Calculation 

Ms. Hunt requests review of the amount of her retirement annuity, as recalculated by OPM in 2002 and eventually affirmed by the MSPB. The MSPB correctly held that 

Ms. Hunt’s proposed annuity calculation of 85% of her final 

salary five years and thereafter 90% of that salary with 5% 

interest is contrary to 5 U.S.C. §§8338, 8339, and that “OPM 

has no discretion to deviate from the computation formulas 

fixed by statute.” Hunt, at 2. The rulings concerning the 

annuity calculation are affirmed. 
HUNT v. MSPB 6

Disability Retirement 

The question of entitlement to disability retirement due 

to the on-the-job injury in 1984 was appealed to the MSPB 

in 1986. No further timely appeal was taken. That decision 

is final; no basis for reopening that issue has been shown. 

Redeposit of Contributions 

Ms. Hunt asked the MSPB to permit her to redeposit 

her withdrawn retirement contributions. The AJ’s opinion 

of October 1, 2010 states that when Ms. Hunt turned sixtytwo “she was informed that if she paid back the $3,355 in 

retirement contributions she withdrew, she would not have 

a reduced retirement. She stated she did not have the 

money at that time. She now requests that the Board allow 

her to make that redeposit.” 5 C.F.R. §831.112(a)(2) implements redeposit pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §8334: 

§831.112(a) Determinations involving an employee’s 

ability to make a deposit or redeposit. A person may 

make a deposit or redeposit under section 8334 of 

title 5, United States Code, if he or she is an ‘employee.’ For purposes of this paragraph, an employee is-- 

 . . . 

 (2) A former employee (whose annuity has 

not been finally adjudicated) who retains civil service retirement annuity rights based on a separation from a position in which retirement deductions 

were properly withheld and remain (or have been 

redeposited in whole or in part) in the Civil Service 

Retirement Disability Fund. 

The AJ stated that until OPM has determined whether Ms. 

Hunt meets the statutory and regulatory requirements 
7 HUNT v. MSPB

related to redeposit, there is nothing for the MSPB to review. The Board stated that Ms. Hunt “must first obtain a 

reconsideration decision from OPM regarding that request 

before the Board will have jurisdiction over that request.” 

Hunt, at 3. It is unclear, from the record provided to this 

court, whether Ms. Hunt requested such a reconsideration 

decision, and whether OPM responded to any such request. 

We remand to the MSPB for resolution of this issue. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART

No costs.