NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-3168 RICHARD A. VAN DALINDA, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

___________________________ DECIDED: October 6, 2005

___________________________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. DECISION Richard A. Van Delinda appeals from a decision of the Merit System Protection Board, Docket No. PH-844E -05-0057-I-1, upholding the dec ision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denying his applicat ion for disability retirement under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”). We affirm

.05-3168 2 BACKGROUND Mr. Van Delinda was employed as a mail carrier with the United States Postal Service. In 2003, he submi tted an application for disability retirement, in which he claimed that he was unable to perform his dut ies as a mail carrier because he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a resu lt of military service in Vietnam. Mr. Van Delinda contended that he became disabled in approximately June of 2002. As part of the evidence submitted to OPM in support of his application for disability retirement, Mr. Van Delinda included a copy of a decision by t he Department of Veterans Affairs, which gave Mr. Van Delinda a disability rating of 70 percent as of January 22, 2001, due to post-traumatic stress disorder. Howeve r, OPM denied Mr. Van Delinda’s application because it concluded that ther e was insufficient evidence that his condition rendered him unable to work as a mail carrier. Mr. Van Delinda asked OPM to reconsider his application, and when OPM reaffirmed its init ial decision, he appealed to the Board. Following a hearing, the administrativ e judge determined that the evidence presented by Mr. Van Delinda did not establis h that “he was disabled for useful and efficient service as a letter carrier.” A dditionally, the administrative judge noted that there was no evidence that Mr. Van Delinda’ s symptoms could not be controlled by medication. In making those determinati ons, the administrative judge explicitly considered the Department of Veterans Affairs’ decision and the evidence that the Department had relied on in making its decis ion. Mr. Van Delinda did not appeal the administrative judge’s decision to the full Board, and the decision became final on April 1, 2005. Mr. Van Delinda appeals the Board’s decision.05-3168 3 DISCUSSION Mr. Van Delinda raises two arguments on appe al. The first is that is that the Board failed to consider the decision of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), which was made shortly after the administrativ e judge issued her initial decision. The SSA ruled that Mr. Van Delinda met the disab ility insured status requirements of the Social Security Act due to his post-traumatic stress disorder and granted him disability insurance benefits. As this court held in Trevan v. Office of Personnel Management , 69 F.3d 520, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1985), however, a Social Security disability determination is not binding on OPM’s decision whether a federal employee is entitled to disability benefits under FERS. Therefore, the SSA’s decision does not automatica lly render Mr. Van Delinda eligible for disability retire ment. Although we have held that “ OPM and the Board must consider an award of Social Security disability benefits, and any underlying medical data provided to OPM by the Social Security Administration,” id. , in this case Mr. Van Delinda did not present the SSA’s decis ion to the administrat ive judge or to the full Board, nor did he seek reopening of the Board’s decision based on the SSA’s decision. Because the Boar d was never given the opportunity to consider the SSA’s decision, we are also unable to consider it. See Oshiver v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 896 F.2d 540, 542 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Mr. Van Delinda also argues that in its decision denying him disability retirement the Board failed to give sufficient weight to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ disability assessment. OPM and the Board considered the Department of Veterans Affairs’ decision but determined that, notwithstandi ng that decision, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Mr. Van De linda was disabled under the statutory test05-3168 4 applied to federal civilian employees. That is a factual determination, and this court is generally precluded from revie wing the factual underpinnings of the Board’s disability determinations. See Anthony v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 58 F.3d 620, 624-26 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, under the circ umstances of this case, we are barred from addressing the factual question whether Mr. Van Delinda’ s post-traumatic stre ss disorder rendered him incapable of serving as a mail carrier and therefore entitled him to disability retirement.