NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DANUEL J. BOYKIN,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2013-3058

______________________ 

Petition for review of Merit System Protection Board 

in No. CH844E120166-I-1 

______________________ 

Decided: June 10, 2013

______________________ 

Danuel J. Boykin, of South Holland, Illinois, pro se. 

WILLIAM P. RAYEL, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on 

the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and DEBORAH 

A. BYNUM, Assistant Director.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, PLAGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
2 DANUEL BOYKIN v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Danuel J. Boykin pro se petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB or “the Board”). In that decision, the Board upheld the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) determination denying Mr. Boykin’s petition for retirement 

benefits due to his untimely filing. Boykin v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., No. CH-844E-12-0166-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 26, 

2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Boykin has served in the military and in the civilian federal service for a combined 18 years. He most 

recently worked as a secretary at the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS). He resigned from the IRS on October 15, 

2009. After Mr. Boykin resigned, he filed an application 

for disability retirement with OPM due to various injuries 

he claimed were connected to his service.

Francine Johnson, a Legal Administrative Specialist 

at OPM, sent Mr. Boykin a letter stating that his medical 

documentation was not sufficient to support his application for disability retirement. Mr. Boykin contends that 

he called Ms. Johnson and told her that he would send his 

entire medical record, which was the size of an unabridged dictionary. According to Mr. Boykin, Ms. Johnson 

told him to send only the previous year or two from his 

medical record. Mr. Boykin protested, claiming that the 

entire record was necessary, but he ultimately complied. 

On May 6, 2010, OPM issued its initial decision denying Mr. Boykin’s application. The decision stated that Mr. 

Boykin had 30 calendar days to request reconsideration

and that he should not delay sending his request to obtain 

additional documentation. Mr. Boykin called Ms. Johnson and discussed the 30-day timeline with her. He told 

her that he intended to send his entire medical record, but 
 DANUEL BOYKIN v. OPM 3

according to Mr. Boykin, Ms. Johnson repeated her instruction not to send the entire record. 

Mr. Boykin took no action until ten months after he 

received OPM’s decision. On March 25, 2011, Mr. Boykin 

sent OPM a letter requesting reconsideration and providing additional documentation to support his claim. Later 

still, on October 26, 2011, Mr. Boykin sent OPM a formal 

request for reconsideration with his entire medical record. 

OPM dismissed Mr. Boykin’s request as untimely.

Mr. Boykin sought review from the MSPB. The administrative judge affirmed OPM’s reconsideration decision in an April 3, 2012 decision, finding that submitting 

evidence and requesting reconsideration were two distinct 

acts, and any instructions that Ms. Johnson may have 

given on the former did not excuse Mr. Boykin’s failure to 

comply with the latter. On December 26, 2012, the MSPB 

denied Mr. Boykin’s petition for review of the administrative judge’s decision. This petition for review followed. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review is limited. We only set aside 

Board decisions that are “(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). 

Mr. Boykin seeks an extension of the 30-day time limit set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 841.306(d)(1) through the exception provided in 5 C.F.R. § 841.306(d)(2). To do so, he 

must show either that he was “not notified of the time 

limit and was not otherwise aware of it” or that he was 

“prevented by circumstances beyond [his] control from 

making the request within the time limit.” 5 C.F.R. § 

841.306(d)(2). 
4 DANUEL BOYKIN v. OPM

Mr. Boykin concedes that he was aware of the 30-day 

time limit, but argues that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from making his request. In 

particular, Mr. Boykin contends that Ms. Johnson intentionally misled and misinformed him. 

We agree with the Board’s analysis. Submitting a request for reconsideration and submitting additional 

evidence with the request are two different things. Even 

if Ms. Johnson misled Mr. Boykin about the information 

that he could submit with his request, she did not mislead 

him about whether he could delay in submitting his

request. And the only evidence of record on this point 

weighs against Mr. Boykin’s claim. In particular, the 

decision that OPM sent Mr. Boykin states:

You may submit any supporting evidence or arguments with your request for reconsideration. If 

you are unable to submit additional documentation with your reconsideration request, do not 

delay sending us your request. You should tell 

us in your request that you intend to submit additional evidence at a later date.

Resp’t’s App. 30. (emphasis in original). The decision 

repeats, “Remember; do not delay sending your request for reconsideration while obtaining additional 

documentation.” Id. at 31 (emphasis in original). The 

decision further provides a checkbox for the applicant to 

check if he or she intends to request reconsideration but 

needs additional time to gather information about the 

relevant disability. Id. at 32.

The language in the decision is clear and Mr. Boykin 

fails to explain why he did not comply with it. At most 

Mr. Boykin makes a vague allegation that he was “misled” and that he complied with “every instruction that 

[Ms. Johnson] gave me.” Pet’r’s Rep. Br. at 1. But the 

only content of their conversations that we have on the 

record is 1) Ms. Johnson’s discussion with Mr. Boykin of 
 DANUEL BOYKIN v. OPM 5

the 30-day deadline outlined in OPM’s decision—which 

weighs against his claim—and 2) her direction to send at 

most a portion of his medical record. There is no evidence 

that Ms. Johnson told Mr. Boykin that he could file his 

request beyond this 30-day window, that he should not 

file his request without first obtaining additional evidence, or that he should not file his request for reconsideration at all. 

We have considered Mr. Boykin’s arguments, and given our standard of review, we do not find any ground on 

which we can do other than affirm the Board. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No Costs.