NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SYLVIA E. BOOKER,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3106

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-14-0118-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 15, 2014

______________________ 

SYLVIA E. BOOKER, of Rosamond, California, pro se.

LAUREN MOORE, 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, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and 

MARIAN E. SULLIVAN, Assistant Director.

______________________ 
2 BOOKER v. OPM

Before PROST, Chief Judge, TARANTO and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Sylvia E. Booker appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or 

“Board”), affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s 

(“OPM”) determination that she was not entitled to a 

former spouse survivor annuity benefit. For the reasons 

that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Booker was married to Carroll Booker for eighteen years before they divorced in 2002. The divorce 

decree provided that “Ms. Booker is to receive her division 

of Mr. Booker’s pension, IRA’s, retirement and 401(K)’s 

pursuant to the Brown decision at the time of the first 

party’s retirement.” Respondent’s App. 14. Mr. Booker 

died while still employed by the Federal Government on 

January 26, 2012. 

Shortly thereafter, Ms. Booker filed an Application for 

Death Benefits with OPM. OPM denied Ms. Booker’s 

request for survivor benefits on June 5, 2012, and affirmed that initial decision on November 5, 2013. Ms. 

Booker appealed that decision to the MSPB, which issued 

an initial decision affirming the denial of her claim on 

February 28, 2014. The Board held that there was no 

language in the divorce decree that could be construed as 

providing for a survivor annuity for Ms. Booker. Booker v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-14-0118-I-1 at 4 

(M.S.P.B. Feb. 28, 2014) (“Initial Decision”). Rather, the 

Board held that the “divorce decree did nothing more than 

divide the decedent’s retirement annuity, which he never 

had the chance to receive and which would, in any event, 

cease upon his death.” Id. The initial decision became 

final on April 4, 2014. Ms. Booker timely appealed the 
BOOKER v. OPM 3

Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Our review of Board decisions is limited by statute. 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), we may only reverse a Board 

decision if we find the decision to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required 

by law; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. Ward 

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 634 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

Ms. Booker first argues that the Board failed to consider that she applied for Mr. Booker’s retirement benefits 

in June of 2011 before he died in preparation for his 

coming retirement in December of that year. Pet’r Br. 1. 

However, the government points out that no such application is contained in the record, and Ms. Booker did not 

mention any such application in her statement of the facts 

and issues presented to the MSPB on January 20, 2014. 

Resp’t App. 27-28. Thus, the only document the Board 

had before it was the divorce decree, which it properly 

considered. 

Second, although Ms. Booker acknowledges that the 

language in her divorce decree “was not specific,” she 

argues that she should nevertheless be granted benefits 

because (a) it does generically state that she was entitled 

to Mr. Booker’s benefits and (b) “[i]t was unknown to the 

judge and other parties at the time that specific names of 

benefits had to be labeled as well as certain declarations 

needed to be made by Mr. Booker in order to receive those 

benefits.” Pet’r Br. 2. 

The applicable regulations provide that a court order 

awarding a former spouse survivor annuity must (1) 

identify the retirement system, and (2) expressly state 

that the former spouse is entitled to a former spouse 

survivor annuity using terms like “survivor annuity,” 
4 BOOKER v. OPM

“death benefits,” or “former spouse survivor annuity 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(1).” See 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.804, 

838.912. Ms. Booker’s divorce decree did neither. Thus, 

the Board did not err in concluding that the “decree 

contains no provision for a survivor annuity, or any other 

terminology that ‘could fairly be read as awarding a CSRS 

survivor annuity.’” Initial Decision at 4 (quoting Fox v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 100 F.3d 141, 146 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). 

Rather, the Board concluded—correctly—that the “divorce 

decree did nothing more than divide the decedent’s retirement annuity, which he never had the chance to 

receive and which would, in any event, cease upon his 

death.” Id. 

Moreover, Ms. Booker cannot rely on the excuse that 

neither the judge nor the parties knew that the divorce 

decree was required to identify the retirement system or 

use sufficiently clear language, as the regulations establishing those requirements were in place well before the 

divorce decree was issued in 2002. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Board 

properly affirmed OPM’s finding that Ms. Booker is not 

entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity benefit. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.