COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

JOHN R. HONAKER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 3019-95-3 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 18, 1996 

VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RUSSELL COUNTY 

Donald A. McGlothlin, Jr., Judge 

 (John M. Lamie; Browning, Lamie & Sharp, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Michael K. Jackson, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; John M. McCarthy, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General; James W. Osborne, 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 John R. Honaker appeals the decision of the circuit court 

affirming the Virginia Retirement System's determination that he 

was not entitled to a waiver of the ninety-day period within 

which to file for disability retirement benefits. Upon reviewing 

the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 "Review of agency factual decisions is governed by the 

'substantial evidence' test. Under this standard, the scope of 

review is limited to ascertaining whether there was substantial 

evidence in the agency record to support the decision." Turner 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

v. Jackson, 14 Va. App. 423, 429-30, 417 S.E.2d 881, 886 (1992) 

(citation omitted). See Code § 9-6.14:17. 

 "The phrase 'substantial evidence' refers to 

'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.' The court may reject the 

agency's finding of fact 'only if, 

considering the record as a whole, a 

reasonable mind would necessarily come to a 

different conclusion.' This standard is 

designed 'to give great stability and 

finality to the fact-finding process of the 

administrative agency.'" 

Branch v. Virginia Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 21 Va. 

App. 242, 251, 463 S.E.2d 340, 344 (1995) (citations omitted). 

 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

agency's decision, Bio-Medical Applications of Arlington, Inc. v. 

Kenley, 4 Va. App. 414, 427, 358 S.E.2d 722, 729 (1987), the 

record proves that Honaker retired from the Department of 

Corrections when his doctor instructed him in October of 1991 to 

quit working because of ill health. Honaker then exercised his 

right to use almost eight months of accumulated sick leave. 

 Prior to the expiration of his sick leave, Honaker met with 

a secretary employed by the Department. The secretary read to 

him the retirement options that were available to him and 

completed his retirement forms. Honaker alleged that the 

secretary told him she did not think he was eligible for 

disability retirement benefits and that she "just went ahead and 

marked" the regular retirement box. Honaker began receiving 

regular retirement benefits for employment in June 1992. 
 3 

 The record also proved that in March 1992, prior to the 

expiration of his sick leave and while still employed, Honaker 

applied for Social Security disability benefits. His application 

for full disability retirement benefits from Social Security was 

approved. 

 In January 1993, Honaker applied to the Virginia Retirement 

System for disability benefits in connection with his employment 

with the Department. He filed the application after he 

discovered that a former employee, who had earned less than he, 

was drawing higher retirement benefits through her disability 

retirement. The Retirement System denied his application because 

it was untimely. 

 Code § 51.1-156, as it read at the time Honaker applied for 

retirement benefits, provided that "[a]ny member in service or 

within ninety days after termination of service . . . may retire 

for disability . . . upon written notification to the Board." 

Code § 51.1-156(A). Subsection (D) provided that "[t]he Board 

may waive the ninety-day requirement upon a showing of good 

cause." In another employment context, this Court has ruled that 

"good cause" is an objective standard, based upon the 

reasonableness of the actions taken. See Umbarger v. Virginia 

Employment Comm'n, 12 Va. App. 431, 434-36, 404 S.E.2d 380, 

382-83 (1991). 

 The Retirement System ruled that Honaker failed to 

demonstrate good cause to waive the ninety-day requirement. The 
 4 

evidence proved that Honaker knew the extent of his injuries 

before he retired and was aware of the option for disability 

retirement. Evidence in the record supports the Retirement 

System's decision that Honaker's reason for delaying his 

application for disability retirement does not constitute good 

cause. Honaker claims that he was misled by a secretary's 

statement that she did not believe he was entitled to disability 

benefits. The evidence does not support a conclusion that 

Honaker had a reasonable basis to rely on her judgment. 

 Honaker knew that he was leaving his employment because of 

ill health. He also knew that disability retirement was an 

option. Indeed, the record reflects that before his retirement 

date he applied for Social Security disability benefits. His 

reliance on a secretary's opinion and failure to further explore 

his retirement options simply was not reasonable. Substantial 

evidence in this record supports the Retirement System's 

decision. We cannot say that the record as a whole necessarily 

leads us to a different conclusion. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.