UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

SYLVIA R. VEGA,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-0752-11-0887-X-1

DATE: July 21, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Sylvia R. Vega, San Antonio, Texas, pro se.

Sarah Dawn Dobbs and Steven J. Shim, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, 

for the agency. 

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 On March 3, 2015, the administrative judge issued an initial decision 

finding that the agency had not fully complied with her prior initial decision 

issued on August 8, 2013, which became the Board’s final decision on 

September 12, 2013. Vega v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. 

 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 
2

SF-0752-11-0887-B-1, Board Remand File (BRF), Tab 10. The matter was 

referred to the Board for consideration. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183. Previously, the 

Board had remanded the appellant’s petition for enforcement for further 

adjudication, finding that the agency had not provided sufficient evidence 

regarding its back pay calculations and other adjustments to the back pay and 

benefits award. Vega v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-11-

0887-C-1, Remand Order (Oct. 23, 2014). 

¶2 In her initial decision, the administrative judge found that the agency failed 

to address the following issues in its submissions: 1) the appellant’s contention 

that she elected not to have Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) deducted 

for the period from her removal through December 2013; 2) whether the agency 

deducted union dues from the back pay award, contrary to the appellant’s 

election; 3) whether it was required to correct the appellant’s state W-2 forms; 

4) whether it properly handled the appellant’s Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) 

contributions; 5) whether it properly credited the appellant’s annual and sick 

leave; and 6) whether it correctly calculated interest on the back pay award. 

BRF, Tab 10 at 4-6. Therefore, the administrative judge ordered the agency to 

provide evidence of compliance, including a full and complete narrative 

explanation of the calculation of back pay and other benefits, including health and 

retirement benefits, union dues, TSP contributions, interest, and any necessary 

corrections to forms W-2. Id. at 7. 

¶3 On April 17, 2015, the agency submitted a statement and supporting 

documentation detailing two back pay payments made to the appellant. MSPB 

Docket No. SF-0752-11-0887-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 4. The 

first payment consisted of $28,421.51 in adjusted gross back pay and $481.57 in 

interest, totaling $29,903.08. Id. at 88. The second payment consisted of 

$46,146.73 in adjusted gross back pay and $2,439.58 in interest, totaling 

$48,586.31. Id. at 91. The agency also attached a report detailing the 

computation of interest on the back pay payments. Id. at 89-93. 
3

¶4 Regarding deductions from the back pay award, the agency stated that the 

appellant failed to request any changes to her FEHB deductions; therefore, the 

agency reinstated her FEHB coverage with retroactive payments. Id. at 6-7. The 

agency deducted a total of $6,819.02 in health benefits premiums from the back 

pay award. Id. at 84. The agency stated that it did not deduct union dues from 

the back pay award. Id. at 5, 14. The agency also stated that it deducted Hawaii 

state income tax totaling $1,406.97. Id. at 5, 14. The agency further stated that 

there should not be any adjustments to the state income tax deductions, and noted 

that the appellant may request a refund from the state of any taxes withheld 

during that period. Id. at 5. 

¶5 Concerning annual and sick leave, the agency stated that it credited a total 

of 334 annual leave hours and 220 sick leave hours, in two payments, in 

accordance with the appellant’s accrual rate of 6 hours of annual leave per pay 

period. Id. at 13. The agency also credited the appellant an additional 4 annual 

leave hours for the last pay period of the 2011 calendar year. Id. 

¶6 The agency stated that it withheld a total of $1,350.00 in TSP deductions, as 

well as $1,350.00 in employer matching contributions. Id. at 12. The agency 

honored the appellant’s existing TSP deduction of $25.00 per pay period in 

making this deduction. Id. 

¶7 Finally, the agency deducted $152.10 in life insurance premiums for the 

Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance program. Id. at 84. 

¶8 On April 21, 2015, the Board issued an Acknowledgment Order informing 

the appellant that any response to the agency’s evidence of compliance must be 

filed within 20 calendar days of the date of service of the agency’s submission, 

April 17, 2015. CRF, Tab 5. The Order notified the appellant that, if she chose 

not to respond, the Board might assume she was satisfied and dismiss the petition 

for enforcement. Id. The appellant did not file a response. 

¶9 We find that the agency has produced sufficient evidence to establish that it 

paid the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay and benefits. In light of 
4

the agency’s evidence of compliance, and the appellant’s failure to respond, we 

find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for enforcement. 

¶10 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this 

compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)). 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request further review of this final decision. 

Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review

You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination 

claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See Title 5 

of the United States Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you 

submit your request by regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is: 

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit your request via commercial delivery or by a method 

requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, NE

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your 

receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your 

representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no 

later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to 

file, be very careful to file on time. 
5

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action

If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your 

discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your 

discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States 

district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with 

the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If 

you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order 

before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar 

days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to 

file on time. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to 

representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of 

prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f) 

and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board