UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

DANA R. WALLACE,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-0831-13-0247-I-1

DATE: August 28, 2014 

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Dana R. Wallace, Lakewood, Washington, pro se.

Christopher H. Ziebarth, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which 

affirmed the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) final decision finding 

that the appellant was receiving the correct retirement annuity under the 

provisions of the Firefighter Pay Reform Act (FPRA), Pub. L. No. 105-277. For 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

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

the reasons discussed below, we DENY the appellant’s petition for review and 

AFFIRM the initial decision AS MODIFIED. Except as expressly modified by 

this Final Order, the initial decision is the Board’s final decision. 

BACKGROUND

¶2 Effective July 3, 2010, the appellant retired from his Fire Protection 

Inspector position with the Department of the Army under the Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS). See 5 U.S.C. § 8336(c); Initial Appeal File (IAF), 

Tab 10 at 99, 118. In December 2011, the appellant filed an appeal with the 

Board alleging that the amount of his retirement annuity was incorrect due to 

errors on the Individual Retirement Record (IRR) that the Army had provided 

OPM. Wallace v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. 

SF-0831-12-0163-I-1 (0163), Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 3-4. Because 

OPM had not issued a final decision on the appellant’s claim, the administrative 

judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction by initial decision dated 

February 16, 2012, and remanded the appeal to OPM for a final decision. 0163, 

Initial Decision (Feb. 16, 2013).

¶3 On February 8, 2013, the appellant filed this appeal, alleging that OPM had 

not issued a final decision on his claim that the amount of his retirement annuity 

was incorrect due to errors on his IRR. Wallace v. Office of Personnel 

Management, MSPB Docket No. SF-0831-13-0247-I-1 (0247), IAF, Tab 1. The 

administrative judge issued an acknowledgement order in which she informed the 

appellant that his appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless he 

amended the appeal to show that a final decision had been issued, and the 

administrative judge ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument to prove 

that this action is within the Board’s jurisdiction. 0247, IAF, Tab 2 at 2.

¶4 In a submission dated February 26, 2013, the appellant asked the Board to 

“review regulations issued by OPM or the implementation of OPM regulations by 

an agency . . . .” 0247, IAF, Tab 5 at 2. More specifically, the appellant asked 
3

the Board to review “the implementation and enforcement of the rules and 

regulations that are under Title V overtime pay and Title 29 [Fair Labor 

Standards Act] (FLSA) overtime pay.” Id. The administrative judge notified the 

appellant that his request would not be considered as part of this appeal because 

any challenge to the implementation of OPM’s regulations must be filed with the 

Clerk of the Board, not the regional office. 0247, IAF, Tab 8.

¶5 In its February 26, 2013 response to the acknowledgment order, OPM 

moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it had not issued a 

final decision in this matter. 0247, IAF, Tab 4. Two days later, however, OPM 

issued a final decision affirming its initial decision in which it had found that the 

appellant was receiving the correct annuity under the FPRA. 0247, IAF, Tab 6. 

In its final decision, OPM stated that it must compute benefits based on the 

certified pay records of the employing agency. Id. at 3.

¶6 Based on the written record, the administrative judge issued an initial 

decision in which he affirmed OPM’s final decision, finding that appellant failed 

to show any error in OPM’s calculation of his annuity based on the IRR certified 

by his employing agency. 2

 0247, IAF, Tab 13, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 5-6. 

The administrative judge stated that the appellant’s remedy for any error in his 

IRR relating to his basic pay is to “petition the Department of the Army to review 

his claims of error and to amend his IRR, if warranted, and to forward the 

amended IRR to OPM for its consideration and for any adjustment required to his 

annuity.” ID at 6. In addition, the administrative judge again advised the 

 2 The administrative judge also found that, although the appellant’s appeal was 

premature in that it was filed before OPM issued its final decision, the appeal became 

ripe for adjudication when OPM issued its final decision while the appeal was pending 

before the administrative judge. ID at 4-5 (citing Garnace v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 51 M.S.P.R. 375 (1991) (the Board’s practice is to adjudicate an appeal 

that is premature when filed but becomes timely while pending before the Board)). We 

discern no reason to disturb this finding.
4

appellant that any claim regarding the implementation of OPM regulations must 

be filed with the Clerk of the Board. ID at 6.

¶7 The appellant has filed a petition for review, with a supplement. Petition 

for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1-2. The agency has filed a response in opposition 

to the petition for review. PFR File, Tab 5.

ANALYSIS

The Board has jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s arguments regarding the 

accuracy of the IRR underlying the OPM final decision at issue in this appeal.

¶8 In affirming OPM’s final decision, the administrative judge noted that 

“[t]he Board has consistently held that OPM is entitled to rely on the information 

contained in the IRR unless and until the IRR is amended by the employing 

agency and that the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the employing agency’s 

certification of an IRR.” ID at 6 (citing O’Connell v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 579, ¶ 4 (2006)). The administrative judge stated that 

“[t]he Board is without jurisdiction to order OPM to obtain a ‘corrected’ IRR for 

an employing agency.” ID at 6.

¶9 While the appellant’s petition for review was pending, the Board issued 

Conner v. Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R. 670 (2014). In 

Conner, the Board addressed the tension between some Board decisions 

(including O’Connell) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions 

regarding whether the Board may consider the appellant’s evidence challenging 

the accuracy and completeness of IRRs. Id., ¶¶ 4-6. The Board noted that, in 

Lisanti v. Office of Personnel Management, 573 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009), 

the Federal Circuit found that, when an employee challenges an agency’s 

interpretation of the term “basic pay,” “OPM, and subsequently the Board, are 

required to entertain that claim absent some clear congressional intent to the 

contrary.” Conner, 120 M.S.P.R. 670, ¶ 5. In addition, the Board noted that, in 

Billinger v. Office of Personnel Management, 206 F.3d 1404 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the 

Federal Circuit rejected OPM’s argument that it is entitled to rely on an 
5

employing agency’s certification on retirement matters and that the Board lacks 

jurisdiction to review such certifications. Conner, 120 M.S.P.R. 670, ¶ 5. 

Recognizing that precedential decisions of the Federal Circuit are controlling 

authority for the Board, in Conner the Board overruled O’Connell and similar 

cases to the extent that they are inconsistent with Lisanti and Billinger. Id., ¶ 6. 

The Board found that, consistent with Federal Circuit precedent, it has 

jurisdiction to review the accuracy and completeness of IRRs in the context of 

OPM final decisions that rely on them. Id. We therefore have considered the 

appellant’s arguments regarding the accuracy and completeness of the IRR 

underlying the OPM final decision at issue in this appeal.

There is no basis for finding that the appellant’s IRR is incorrect.

¶10 The FPRA changed the way in which pay is computed for GS-081 

firefighters whose regularly scheduled workweeks average 53 hours or more.3

 

See 0163, IAF, Tab 1 at 52. Prior to the enactment of the FPRA, firefighters were 

entitled to the same rate of basic pay that applied to General Schedule employees 

with a 40-hour workweek. Id. In addition, they generally received standby duty 

pay, a form of premium pay, under 5 U.S.C. § 5545(c)(1) to compensate them for 

their extended tours of duty, which was paid as a percentage of basic pay not to 

exceed 25 percent of the employee’s rate of basic pay. 0163, IAF, Tab 1 at 52. 

For retirement purposes, basic pay included standby duty pay under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 5545(c)(1). See 5 U.S.C. 8331(3)(C).

¶11 Further, firefighters covered by the FLSA overtime provisions also received 

additional pay under the FLSA. 0163, IAF, Tab 1 at 52. The overtime standard 

for firefighters under the FLSA is 53 hours per week (or 106 biweekly). Id. For 

overtime hours within their regularly scheduled workweek, firefighters received a 

 3 It is undisputed that the appellant occupied a GS-081 position and that his regularly 

scheduled workweek averaged 53 hours or more. See 0247, IAF, Tab 6 at 3 (stating that 

the appellant worked an uncommon tour of duty of 144 hours per pay period), Tab 10 at 

105-13 (reflecting that the appellant occupied a GS-081 position). 
6

supplemental half-rate premium (in addition to basic pay and standby pay 

received for regularly scheduled hours). Id. For irregular overtime hours, 

firefighters received time-and-a-half overtime pay. Id.

¶12 The FPRA amended Title 5 of the U.S. Code by adding §§ 5542(f) and 

5545b, “Pay for Firefighters.” Section 5542(f) provides as follows: 

In applying subsection (a) of this section with respect to 

a firefighter who is subject to section 5545b--

(1) such subsection shall be deemed to apply to hours of 

work officially ordered or approved in excess of 106 

hours in a biweekly pay period, or, if the agency 

establishes a weekly basis for overtime pay 

computation, in excess of 53 hours in an administrative 

workweek; and

(2) the overtime hourly rate of pay is an amount equal to 

one and one-half times the hourly rate of basic pay 

under section 5545b (b)(1)(A) or (c)(l)(B) as applicable, 

and such overtime hourly rate of pay may not be less 

than such hourly rate of basic pay in applying the 

limitation on the overtime rate provided in paragraph 

(2) of such subsection (a).

Section 5545b provides, in pertinent part:

(b)(2) For the purpose of section[ ]. . . 8331(3) . . . and 

for such other purposes as may be expressly provided 

for by law or as [OPM] may by regulation prescribe, the 

basic pay of a firefighter subject to this subsection shall 

include an amount equal to the firefighter’s basic hourly 

rate . . . for all hours in such firefighter’s regular tour of 

duty (including overtime hours).

. . .

(d)(1) A firefighter who is subject to this section shall 

receive overtime pay in accordance with section 5542, 

but shall not receive premium pay provided by other 

provisions of this subchapter.
7

(2) For the purpose of applying section 7(k) of the 

[FLSA] to a firefighter who is subject to this section, no 

violation referred to in such section 7(k) shall be 

deemed to have occurred if the requirements of section 

5542(a) are met, applying section 5542(a) as provided in 

subsection (f) of that section: Provided, that the 

overtime hourly rate of pay for such firefighter shall in 

all cases be an amount equal to one and one-half times 

the firefighter’s hourly rate of basic pay under . . . this 

section . . . .

¶13 Thus, the FPRA eliminated standby duty pay, barred payment of any other 

premium pay, and treated the straight-time portion of overtime pay4 for overtime 

hours in the firefighter’s regular tour of duty as basic pay for retirement and other 

purposes. However, the extra half-rate premium for those overtime hours is not 

basic pay for these purposes. See 0163, IAF, Tab 1 at 54-55. 

¶14 In addition, 5 C.F.R. § 550.1305 of the OPM regulations implementing the 

FPRA provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The sum of pay for nonovertime hours that are part 

of a firefighter’s regular tour of duty (as computed 

under §550.1303) and the straight-time portion of 

overtime pay for hours in a firefighter’s regular tour of 

duty is treated as basic pay only for [certain purposes, 

including]: 

(1)Retirement deductions and benefits under chapters 83

and 84 of title 5, United States Code[.]

Consequently, federal firefighters who work a 72-hour week receive time-and-a--

half for the 19 hours of overtime worked each week, but their retirement benefit 

is calculated as if they were receiving straight-time pay for this regularly 

scheduled overtime.

 4 The straight-time portion of overtime pay is the firefighter’s hourly rate of basic pay 

multiplied by the number of overtime hours in the firefighter’s regular tour of duty. 

5 C.F.R. § 550.1305(b); see 0163, IAF, Tab 1 at 54.
8

¶15 The appellant argues on review that the supplemental half-rate premium 

pay is part of his rate of basic pay under FLSA rules and therefore should have 

been included as part of his annualized salary on his IRR. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. 

As explained above, however, pursuant to the FPRA and OPM’s implementing 

regulations, specifically, 5 C.F.R. § 550.1305, the straight-time portion of 

overtime pay for overtime hours in the firefighter’s regular tour of duty is treated 

as basic pay for retirement and other purposes; however, the extra half-rate 

premium for those overtime hours is not basic pay for these purposes. Therefore, 

we find that the appellant has failed to show any error in the calculation of his 

retirement annuity.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the 

Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. You have the right to 

request the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review this 

final decision. You must submit your request to the court at the following 

address: 

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar 

days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 

27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has 

held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline 

and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See 

Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to 

court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in 
9

Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United 

States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm. 

Additional information 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, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your court 

appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of 

attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for 

Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. The Merit Systems 

Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor 

warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board