NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SYLVIA R. SCRIVENS,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1910

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-844E-15-0811-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 18, 2016 

______________________ 

SYLVIA R. SCRIVENS, Casselberry, FL, pro se. 

MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

CLAUDIA BURKE. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
2 SCRIVENS v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Sylvia R. Scrivens appeals pro se a final order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the 

Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) denial of a 

disability retirement annuity under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”). We conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination 

that Ms. Scrivens failed to establish that her condition 

prevented her from performing useful and efficient service 

in her position. We thus affirm the Board’s final order 

denying Ms. Scrivens’ claim for a disability retirement 

annuity.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Scrivens worked as a letter carrier for the United 

States Postal Service. Following a workplace incident in 

2004, she received workers’ compensation benefits until

returning to work in 2006. Ms. Scrivens testified that

despite having “a difficult time” returning to work, she 

worked until August 2013. A6, A25.

On August 21, 2013, Ms. Scrivens attended a meeting 

to discuss deficiencies in her workplace performance. 

Ms. Scrivens stated that during that meeting, she had an 

“episode” during which “she felt angry, confused[,] and 

mad and talked loudly in front of her supervisors.” A6, 

A25. The next month, Dr. Benjamin Isom, a licensed 

psychologist, wrote that Ms. Scrivens was “unable to 

perform her normal work duties and is being placed her 

[sic] on 30-days medical leave of absence” but gave no 

further explanation. A16. Dr. Isom subsequently extended Ms. Scrivens’ leave through January 2014. In a January 9, 2014 letter, Dr. Isom opined that Ms. Scrivens 

remained “unable to perform one or more functions of her 

occupation” and that she should “explore the possibility of 

Disability Retirement.” A21–A23. 
SCRIVENS v. OPM 3

Ms. Scrivens applied for disability retirement in May 

2014. On the required Statement of Disability, she listed 

the August 21, 2013 meeting as the onset date of her two 

disability conditions: post-traumatic stress disorder 

(“PTSD”) and anxiety. Ms. Scrivens explained that her 

conditions caused increased confusion, poor focus, and 

intense anxiety. She further explained that attempting to 

concentrate while driving “is a very vital part” of her job,

her safety, and the safety of others. A29. Ms. Scrivens

also submitted a Supervisor’s Statement from Veronica 

Jorden dated July 21, 2014 that explained there were 

“[n]o critical elements in which [Ms. Scrivens did] not 

perform successfully” other than an “unacceptable” attendance record. A37–38. According to Ms. Jorden, 

Ms. Scrivens “had been on FMLA and/or AWOL” since the 

August 21, 2013 meeting. A38. 

In June 2014, a psychiatrist, Dr. Ramon Martinez, released Ms. Scrivens to work part time with no restrictions. In July 2014, she returned to work full time, 

where she remained until October 2014. Ms. Scrivens has 

not worked since then.1

On December 30, 2014, OPM denied Ms. Scrivens’ application for disability retirement because her submitted 

medical records failed to establish that she was disabled 

from performing useful and efficient service in her position. After Ms. Scrivens moved for reconsideration, OPM 

sustained its denial and explained that she had not 

presented any evidence that she exhausted the possibility 

of a reasonable accommodation for her condition. 

Ms. Scrivens appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

 

1 The record is unclear regarding the circumstances 

surrounding Ms. Scrivens’ October 2014 departure from 

the Postal Service.
4 SCRIVENS v. OPM

DISCUSSION

“[O]ur scope of review of FERS disability retirement 

determinations is substantially truncated.” Anthony 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 58 F.3d 620, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

We may hold unlawful and set aside an agency action 

found to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained 

without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation 

having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial 

evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). With one small exception, 

5 U.S.C. § 8461(d) precludes us from reviewing the factual 

underpinnings of physical or mental disability determinations. Anthony, 58 F.3d at 626; 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(2)

(excepting findings of mental disability “made pursuant to 

an application by an agency for purposes of disability 

retirement under section 8451”). Because that exception 

does not apply here, our review is limited to whether 

there has been a “substantial departure from important 

procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing 

legislation, or some like error going to the heart of the 

administrative determination.” Lindahl v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 791 (1985) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

Ms. Scrivens argues that the Board failed to consider 

her medical disability in making its decision. Pet’r’s Br. 

at 1. Specifically, Ms. Scrivens faults the Board for not 

considering the information provided in a mental impairment questionnaire. Id. at 3. 

The Board’s determinations of “disability and dependency” are “final and conclusive and are not subject to 

review.” 5 U.S.C. § 8461(d). Thus, the underlying merits 

of whether Ms. Scrivens qualified for disability based on 

her mental condition are beyond our purview, and we do 

not address them here.

We may, however, review the Board’s decision for procedural error. Despite Ms. Scrivens’ allegation that the 
SCRIVENS v. OPM 5

Board failed to consider her medical questionnaire, the 

Board specifically found “nothing in either Dr. Martinez’s 

letters or questionnaire that specifically relates 

[Ms. Scrivens’] condition to her particular job duties and 

explains why her condition prevents her from performing 

those duties in a useful and efficient manner.” A8–A9 

(emphasis added). Thus, while Ms. Scrivens may disagree 

with the Board’s conclusion, the record indicates the 

Board properly considered all relevant evidence before it.

The Board’s final order is supported by substantial 

evidence, not arbitrary or capricious, and in accordance 

with law. We affirm the Board’s final order.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.