NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RICHARD JOSEPH SOROKA,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2013-3173

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH0843110788-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 6, 2014 

______________________ 

RICHARD JOSEPH SOROKA, of Warren, Michigan, pro 

se. 

VERONICA N. ONYEMA, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With 

her on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney General, BRYANT G. SNEE, Acting Director, and 

CLAUDIA BURKE, Assistant Director.

______________________ 
2 SOROKA v. OPM

Before PROST, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Richard J. Soroka (“Mr. Soroka”) appeals a final order 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“board”) upholding the denial of his application for a Federal Employees 

Retirement System (“FERS”) lump sum death benefit 

following the death of his son, Jeffrey L. Soroka. See 

Soroka v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. CH0843110788-I-1, 

2013 MSPB LEXIS 4351 (MSPB Aug. 21, 2013) (“Board 

Decision”). Because we conclude that the board correctly 

determined that the Office of Personnel Management 

(“OPM”) was required to distribute the lump sum death 

benefit to Jeffrey Soroka’s former wife, Jamie Hoffman, 

we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 1999, Jeffrey Soroka, a federal government employee who was eligible to participate in the 

FERS program, executed an SF-3102 designation of 

beneficiary form. This document, which was signed by 

two witnesses, listed Jeffrey Soroka’s wife, Hoffman, as 

the sole beneficiary of any FERS death benefits. Jeffrey 

Soroka and his wife divorced in 2002. The default judgment of divorce granted Jeffrey Soroka “all interest in his 

retirement and TSP plans with his current employer, 

TACOM, as well as any benefits that he may accrue 

through these plans in the future[.]” He was further 

awarded his “accumulated contributions in any pension, 

annuity, or retirement system[.]” Jeffrey Soroka died on 

May 15, 2010. 

Following his son’s death, Mr. Soroka filed an application seeking his son’s FERS death benefits. On July 19, 

2011, OPM sent Mr. Soroka and his wife a letter stating 

that they were “not eligible to receive a lump sum death 

benefit under [FERS] based on Jeffrey L. Soroka’s death.” 

Citing to 5 U.S.C. § 8342(c), OPM explained that Mr. 
SOROKA v. OPM 3

Soroka and his wife were not entitled to the lump sum 

benefit “because Jeffrey L. Soroka completed a designation of beneficiary form in 1999” which did not list them 

as his beneficiaries.* OPM subsequently sent Mr. Soroka 

and his wife two invoices stating that they were required 

to repay a total of $855.45 for the previously disbursed 

death benefits which they had received.

On August 12, 2011, Mr. Soroka filed an appeal with 

the board. He alleged that OPM erred in denying his 

application for his son’s lump sum death benefit, asserting that the agency had failed to consider the provisions 

in his son’s divorce decree and a “change of beneficiaries” 

form. On October 28, 2011, following a hearing, an administrative judge of the board issued an initial decision 

affirming OPM’s denial of Mr. Soroka’s claim for his son’s 

lump sum death benefit. The administrative judge stated 

that “[t]he order of precedence for receipt of the lump-sum 

* Both OPM and the board cited to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8342(c) as the provision governing the award of Jeffrey 

Soroka’s lump sum death benefits. Section 8342(c), 

however, applies to the designation of beneficiaries in the 

civil service retirement program. The provision applicable to participants in the FERS program, such as Jeffrey 

Soroka, is 5 U.S.C. § 8424(d). Both statutes, however, 

contain substantively identical language regarding the 

order of precedence for the payment of benefits. Compare 

5 U.S.C. § 8424(d) (stating that OPM must make payment 

“[f]irst, to the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by 

the employee or Member in a signed and witnessed writing received in the Office before the death of such employee or Member”) with 5 U.S.C. § 8342(c) (stating that OPM 

must make payment “[f]irst, to the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the employee or Member in a signed 

and witnessed writing received in the Office before his 

death”).

 
4 SOROKA v. OPM

death benefit under FERS specifies that any such benefit 

must go first to the beneficiary designated by a signed 

and witnessed writing received by OPM prior to the death 

of the employee.” Because Hoffman was listed as the 

designated beneficiary on the “one form signed by Jeffrey, 

witnessed, and properly filed with OPM prior to Jeffrey’s death,” she was entitled to receive her 

former husband’s lump sum death benefit. The administrative judge acknowledged that Mr. Soroka had alleged 

that he, his wife, and his son had “completed all necessary 

. . . forms” to change the designated beneficiary prior to 

his son’s death. Mr. Soroka, however, “did not produce a 

copy of the form necessary for designation of the lumpsum death benefit” and did not “have any specific recollection of completing that particular form and sending it to 

. . . OPM.” 

The full board affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision on August 21, 2013. The board stated that 

the award of “lump sum benefits must be made in order of 

precedence; first, to the beneficiary designated by the 

employee in a signed and witnessed writing received by 

OPM before his death.” Board Decision, 2013 MSPB 

LEXIS 4351, at *4. The board further noted that there 

was “no evidence that [Jeffrey Soroka] ever submitted a 

new designation form to OPM before his death.” Id. at *5 

(footnote omitted). While Mr. Soroka recalled signing 

some forms after his son’s divorce, he “was uncertain as to 

which forms were purportedly submitted.” Id. at *6. 

Finally, the board stated that if Mr. Soroka wanted to 

challenge OPM’s efforts to recoup the death benefit payments that had previously been disbursed, he should file a 

separate appeal pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 845.204. 

Mr. Soroka then filed a timely appeal with this court. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
SOROKA v. OPM 5

DISCUSSION

Our review of a board decision is circumscribed by 

statute. We can set aside such a decision only if it is: “(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); see Nguyen v. Dep’t of Homeland 

Sec., 737 F.3d 711, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

As the board correctly determined, Mr. Soroka was 

not entitled to receive his son’s FERS lump sum death 

benefit. “[I]t is a bedrock canon of statutory construction 

that our judicial inquiry ends where statutory language is 

plain and unambiguous.” White v. United States, 543 

F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Conn. Nat’l Bank v. 

Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992) (“We have stated 

time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a 

statute what it says there.”). Section 8424(d) unambiguously provides that OPM must “[f]irst” pay FERS lump 

sum death benefits “to the beneficiary or beneficiaries 

designated by the employee or Member in a signed and 

witnessed writing received [by OPM] before the death of 

such employee or Member.” In 1999, Jeffrey Soroka filed 

a signed and witnessed SF-3102 designation of beneficiary form with OPM which listed Hoffman as the sole 

beneficiary of his FERS death benefits. No updated 

beneficiary designation form has been produced. Although Mr. Soroka recalled that he, his wife, and his son 

completed some forms after his son’s divorce, he did not 

“have any specific recollection of completing [an updated 

SF-3102 form] and sending it to . . . OPM.” Because the 

record contains only one SF-3102 designation of beneficiary form—and that form lists Hoffman as Jeffrey Soroka’s designated beneficiary—the board correctly 

determined that OPM was required to distribute the lump 

sum death benefit to Hoffman. The plain language of 
6 SOROKA v. OPM

section 8424(d) “does not afford OPM or the Board any 

discretion to award” benefits to an individual other than 

the “person designated as beneficiary in a form properly 

filed with OPM.” Landsberger v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 50 

M.S.P.R. 13, 16-17 (1991), aff’d, 956 F.2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 

1992); see also Ferguson v. Long, 885 F. Supp. 2d 294, 297 

(D.D.C. 2012) (concluding that the proceeds from a decedent’s Federal Thrift Savings Plan (“TSP”) retirement 

account were required to be distributed to the decedent’s 

father, rather than her husband, because the only “‘signed 

and witnessed writing’” that had been submitted listed 

her father as her beneficiary (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 8424(d)); 

Alston v. Alston, No. JFM-12-74, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

40621, at *3-5 (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2012) (concluding that a 

decedent’s children were entitled to the funds in his TSP 

account because the only valid designation of beneficiary 

form submitted listed them as the decedent’s beneficiaries).

Jeffrey Soroka’s default judgment of divorce stated 

that he was to receive “all interest in his retirement and 

TSP plans” and “any accumulated contributions in any 

pension, annuity, or retirement system[.]” Section 

8424(d) specifically provides, however, that “a designation, change, or cancellation of beneficiary in a will or 

other document” which is not signed, witnessed and filed 

with OPM will have “no force or effect” on an employee’s 

beneficiary designation. Thus, notwithstanding the 

provisions in Jeffrey Soroka’s divorce decree regarding the 

disposition of his retirement benefits, neither this court 

nor the board has the authority to require OPM to award 

lump sum death benefits in a manner contrary to the 

unequivocal dictates of section 8424(d). OPM is prohibited from granting benefits not authorized by law regardless of the equities involved. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. 

Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424-34 (1990). “[P]ublic funds 

[must] be spent according to the letter of the difficult 

judgments reached by Congress as to the common good 
SOROKA v. OPM 7

and not according to the individual favor of Government 

agents or the individual pleas of litigants.” Id. at 428.

The record also shows that in 1987 Jeffrey Soroka 

signed and submitted an SF-1152 designation of beneficiary form which indicated that upon his death any “unpaid compensation” would be paid to his parents, Richard 

and Arlene Soroka. Form SF-1152, however, is used 

solely to designate the beneficiary of any unpaid compensation—such as unpaid salary or accrued leave—not to 

designate the beneficiary of an employee’s lump sum 

death benefit. Form SF-1152 specifically states that it 

has no effect on the disposition of any retirement benefits 

to which an employee might be entitled. See Board Decision, 2013 MSPB LEXIS 4351, at *6 n.4. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board is affirmed.

COSTS

No costs.

AFFIRMED