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

05-3141

RODOLFO H. ADAMS, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

___________________________ DECIDED: August 5, 2005

___________________________ Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge , ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge , and BRYSON, Circuit Judge

. PER CURIAM. DECISION Petitioner Rodolfo H. Adams seeks review of a decision of the Merit System Protection Board, Docket No . SE-0831-04-0104-I-1, affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding a decision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”). OPM’s decision had denied Mr. Adams’s claim for survivor benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). Because we lack jurisdiction to consider his petition for review, we dismiss the petition.05-3141 2 BACKGROUND Mr. Adams’s late father, Federico C. Adams, worked in the Philippines as a civilian employee of the Depar tment of the Army, the Depar tment of the Air Force, and the Veterans Administration at various ti mes from the 1930’s to the 1970’s when he retired because of a physical disability. From January 1950 until March 1952, he worked for the Veterans Administration. At the end of that per iod, he applied for and received authorization for a refund of his CS RS contributions. When he finally ended his civilian service in 1973, the standard form 50 documenting his separation from service indicated that he was not eligible for pension benefits under any retirement plan. After he died in 1977, his widow applied for CS RS survivor benefits. The Civil Service Commission denied her claim. Mrs. Adam s died in 1999, and the petitioner subsequently filed a claim with OPM for surv ivor benefits based on hi s father’s civilian service. OPM initially denied that claim becaus e Mr. Federico Adams had received a refund of all of his retirem ent deductions and was therefore not eligible for benefits. OPM issued a reconsideration decision in wh ich it found that, following Mr. Federico Adams’s separation from the Veterans Administ ration in 1952, it auth orized a refund of his retirement deductions. OPM concluded that Mr. Federico Ad ams was thus not eligible for CSRS benefits for that period of employment, and it therefore again denied the petitioner’s claim for survivor benefits. OPM’s reconsideration decision, however, did not address any other peri ods of service covered by the petitioner’s claim for benefits.05-3141 3 The petitioner appealed the re consideration decision to the Board but did not dispute the portion of OPM’s decision finding t hat his father was ineligible for benefits for the period ending in 1952 when he was employ ed by the Veterans Administration. The Board accordingly affirmed that portion of the decision. Howeve r, the Board further concluded that OPM had failed to address Mr. Federico Adams’s periods of service with the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Fo rce. The Board therefore remanded the matter to OPM to address those other periods of service. The Board directed OPM to issue a reconsideration decis ion within 90 days of the Board’s decision becoming final. The petitioner filed a petition for review by the full Board, which was denied on February 22, 2005. Accordingly, the initial decision of the Board became the final decision on that date, and the re mand decision from OPM became due 90 days from that date. During t hat 90-day period and before OPM issued the reconsideration decision, the petitioner filed this pet ition for review by this court. DISCUSSION Mr. Adams complains that according to the Board decision, OPM was required to issue its reconsideration decis ion 90 days from the Board’s initial decision on May 4, 2004. We disagree. The Board ordered OP M to render its reconsideration decision within 90 days from the date that the Board’s decision became final. The pertinent regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113, states that “[t]he in itial decision of the judge will become final 35 days after issuance.” However, subsection (a) of that provision states that “[t]he initial decision will not become final if any party files a petition for review within the time limit for filing specified in § 1201.114 of this part, or if the Board reopens the case on its own motion.” If any party pet itions for review, subsection (b) specifies05-3141 4 that “the initial decis ion will become final when the Board issues its last decision denying a petition for review.” Accordingly, becaus e Mr. Adams petitioned for review of the initial decision, the decision of the Board became final on February 22, 2005, the day it denied Mr. Adams’s petition for review. Ther efore, the 90-day period for OPM to issue its reconsideration decision had not expired when Mr. Adams f iled his petition for review of the Board’s final decision on April 18, 2005. OPM contends that we lack jurisdicti on to consider Mr. Adams’s appeal. We agree. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewi ng a “final order or dec ision” of the Merit Systems Protection Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). An order remanding a matter to an administrative agency for further proceedings and findings is not final. Cabot Corp. v. United States , 788 F.2d 1539, 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Caesar v. West , 195 F.3d 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Remands to administrative agencies, because they mark a continuation of the case, ar e not generally considered final decisions for jurisdictional purposes.”). The rule permitting appeals only from final decisions of administrative agencies avoi ds judicial interference with ongoing administrative proceedings and “saves the expense and delays of repeated appeals in the same suit.” Travelstead v. Derwinski , 978 F.2d 1244, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Because the Board remanded to OPM for furt her proceedings, the Board’s decision is not final. We therefore dismiss Mr. Adams’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. If the Board issues an adverse final decision after OPM issues the reconsideration decision ordered by the Board, Mr. Adams may seek review of that decision at that time.