NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3284 ROGER M. BONCELET, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Roger M. Boncelet , of Highland Park, New Jersey, pro se. Timothy P. McIlmail , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz , Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson , Director; and Kirk T. Manhardt , Assistant Director. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3284 ROGER M. BONCELET, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Syst ems Protection Board in PH844E070201-I-1.

__________________________ DECIDED: July 8, 2008

__________________________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , RADER and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Roger M. Boncelet (Mr. Bonc elet) petitions for review of the United States Merit Systems Protection Board’s (B oard) final order in Boncelet v. Office of Personnel Management , PH844E070201-I-1 (June 12, 2007). The in itial decision of the Board, which became final on June 12, 2007, affi rmed the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) reconsideration decision, which reaffirmed OPM’s earlier determination to disallow Mr. Boncelet’s disability retirem ent application under t he Federal Employees’ Retirement System. Mr. Boncelet petitions this court for review. The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.BACKGROUND The Transportation Security Administ ration (TSA), Department of Homeland Security, terminated Mr. Boncelet’s employm ent as a Transportation Security Screener at the Newark International Airport, effe ctive January 28, 2005. TSA terminated Mr. Boncelet because he “did not successfully complete the Annual Proficiency Review (APR) and consequently [did] not meet the requirements for A nnual Recertification as a Transportation Security Screener.” Mr. Bonc elet applied for disability retirement, and OPM dismissed the application as untimely, but OPM later reconsidered its initial decision and waived its timeliness requiremen t. OPM then disallowed Mr. Boncelet’s application for disability retirement. OPM found Mr. Boncelet did not provide documentation showing any medical conditi on that could cause him to fail his recertification tests, and found there was no evidence t hat he had any inability to regularly attend work and perform his assigned dut ies prior to failing his recertification test. Mr. Boncelet appealed to the Board, and at Mr. Boncelet’s request, the appeal was decided on the record without a hearing. The administrative judge affirmed OPM’s reconsideration decision in an initial dec ision dated May 8, 2007, and that decision became final on June 12, 2007. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION The scope of our review in disability re tirement cases “is limited to correcting errors involving ‘important procedural ri ghts, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like e rror going to the heart of the adm inistrative determination.’” Smith v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 784 F.2d 397, 398 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

2007-3284 22007-3284 3 We may not review the “factual underpinni ngs” of disability determinations. Id. (citation omitted). Mr. Boncelet appears to agree that the B oard applied the correct law. Pet. Br., Answer to Question No. 3. He does not a sk us to correct any errors by the Board involving “important procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like error going to the heart of t he administrative determination.” See Smith , 784 F.2d at 398. Rather, his ar guments involve the factual underpinnings of the Board’s decision. He argues that the Board failed to recognize certain aspects of his medical condition, including the severity of his seiz ures, the advice of his doctors, and the nature of his medication regimen. The government responds that the Board did take these facts into account. Because we do not have the power to review the factual underpinnings of the Board’s decision, id. at 401, we dismiss t he petition for lack of jurisdiction. COSTS No costs.