NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3029 CONCHITA R. ARARRO, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Conchita R. Ararro , of San Isidro, Castillejos, Philippines, pro se. Jeremiah M. Luongo , Trial Attorney, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson , Director and Kenneth M. Dintzer , Assistant Director. Of counsel was Jo Ann Chabot , Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, United States Office of Personnel Mana gement, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3029 CONCHITA R. ARARRO, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Syst ems Protection Board in SF0831080290-I-1.

__________________________ DECIDED: March 31, 2009

__________________________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , SCHALL and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Petitioner Conchita R. Ararro (“Ararro”) petitions for revi ew of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Boar d”) dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Ararro v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , No. SF-0831-08-0290-I -1 (M.S.P.B. June 17, 2008) (“ Decision ”), review denied Ararro v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , No. SF-0831-08- 0290-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 2, 2008). Because Ararro has failed to identify any basis for us to overturn the Board’s decision, we affirm

. On June 9, 2000, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denied Ararro’s application for survivor annuity benefits based on her late hus band’s federal service, on the ground that her husband se rved under an appointment s pecifically excluded byregulation from coverage under the Civ il Service Retirement System. Ararro v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , No. SE-0831-00-0301-I-1, slip op. at 7 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 10, 2000), review denied Ararro v. Office Of Pers. Mgmt. , No. SE-0831-00-0301-I-1 (M.S.P.B. May 10, 2001). The Board affirmed the denial in an init ial decision, which became final when the Board denied review. Id. at 2. Ararro did not seek fu rther review of the Board’s final decision. Decision at 2. More than six years later, Ararro wrote to OPM concerning possible Civil Service Retirement System benefits. OPM respond ed in a letter dated Ja nuary 16, 2008, which stated in its entirety: Dear Ms. Ararro: This is in reply to your letter conc erning possible benefits payable from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). A review of our records shows that our final decision on this issue was sent to you on 06/09/00. On 05/10/01, the Merit Syst ems Protection Board (MSPB) affirmed our decision that you are not entitled to survivor annuity benefits from the CSRS. There is nothing further we can add. Resp’t’s App. 38. Ararro filed an appeal to the Bo ard referencing this letter. Decision at 1. The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdic tion, reasoning that OPM’s letter was not a decision on the merits of Ar arro’s entitlement to benefits, and consequently the letter was not appealable to the Board. Id. at 4. Ararro petitions for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). “Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Specifically, we must affirm the Board’s deci sion unless we find it to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discret ion, or otherwise not in a ccordance with law; obtained

2009-3029 2without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by substantial evidence.” Abell v. Dep’t of Navy , 343 F.3d 1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing 5 U. S.C. § 7703(c)). “The pet itioner bears the burden of establishing error in the Board’s decision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Board’s jurisdiction is limited by st atute and regulation. Subject to certain exceptions not applicable to this case, “an administrative action or order affecting the rights or interests of an individual . . . ma y be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board under procedures prescribed by the B oard.” 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1). Actions concerning Civil Service Retirement S ystem benefits are governed by 5 C.F.R. § 831.110, which provides that “an individual . . . whose rights or interests under the Civil Service Retirement System . . . are affected by a final decision of the representative of the Associate Directo r for Compensation, Office of Personnel Management, may request the Merit Systems Prot ection Board to review such decision in accord with procedures prescribed by the Board” (emphasis added). OPM’s January 16, 2008 letter to Ararro wa s not a “final decision” concerning Ararro’s entitlement to benefit s. Rather, as the letter it self makes clear, OPM’s final decision that Ararro was not entitled to Ci vil Service Retirement System benefits had been made on June 9, 2000, and Ararro obtained Board revi ew of that decision. Because OPM’s January 16, 2008 letter was not a final decision, the Board properly dismissed Ararro’s appeal for la ck of jurisdiction. Because the remainder of Ararro’s arguments on appeal concern th e merits of her underlying claim—which are not before

2009-3029 32009-3029 4 us—we need not and do not addre ss those arguments. We affirm the decision of the Board. COSTS No costs.