UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

PATRICIA WOLFE,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-831E-09-0766-X-1

DATE: August 19, 2014 

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Patricia Wolfe, Saint Augustine, Florida, pro se.

Thomas L. Styer, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 On March 23, 2011, the administrative judge issued a recommended 

decision that the Board find, under the Board’s regulations in effect at that time, 

the agency in noncompliance with the Board’s November 9, 2010 Final Order, 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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

and the matter was referred to the Board for consideration. 2 MSPB Docket No. 

AT-831E-09-0766-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1. See 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.183 (Jan. 1, 2012). In its Final Order, the Board directed the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) to grant the appellant’s application for disability 

retirement. MSPB Docket No. AT-831E-09-0766-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 7.

¶2 The appellant filed a petition for enforcement alleging that OPM had not 

complied with the Board’s Final Order. The administrative judge recommended 

that OPM be ordered to show that it had completed the final adjudication of the 

appellant’s disability retirement or explain why the final adjudication had not 

been completed and detail the steps it was taking to complete the final 

adjudication. CRF, Tab 1. 

¶3 On March 21, 2012, OPM submitted documentation showing that the 

appellant received a net interim payment of $2,551.70 for the month of 

February 2010, and that her annuity was finalized on March 5, 2010. CRF, Tab 4. 

The appellant is currently receiving a gross monthly annuity payment of 

$3,362.00. See id. The appellant did not respond to OPM’s submission. By 

order dated June 20, 2014, the Board informed the appellant that, if she did not 

respond to OPM’s evidence of compliance within 20 days, the Board would

assume that the appellant was satisfied and would dismiss the petition for 

enforcement. CRF, Tab 5. 

¶4 In light of OPM’s evidence of compliance, and the appellant’s failure to 

respond, we find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for 

enforcement. 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(b) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)). 

 2 Except as otherwise noted in this decision, we have applied the Board’s regulations 

that became effective November 13, 2012. We note, however, that the petition for 

enforcement in this case was filed before that date. The revisions to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.183 do not affect our consideration of the merits of this compliance proceeding.
3

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney 

fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of 

the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The 

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If 

you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees 

WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You 

must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision 

on your appeal.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to 

the court at the following address:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar 

days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 

27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has 

held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline 

and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See 

Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to 

court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in 

Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United 
4

States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm. 

Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. 

Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and 

Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 

6, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your court 

appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of 

attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for 

Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. The Merit Systems 

Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor 

warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board