UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION 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### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

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 O RDER ¶1 On March 23, 2011, t he administrative judge issued a recommended decision that the Board find, under the Board’s regulations in effect at that time, the agency in non c ompliance with the Board’s November 9, 2010 Final O rder,

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not require d to follow or distinguish them in any future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 signific antly 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 M SPB 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 petitio n 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 fi nal adjudication had not been completed and detail the steps it wa s 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 $2,5 51.70 for the mon th 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 a ppellant did not respond to OPM’s submiss ion. By

o rder dated June 20, 2014, the Board informed the appellant that, if she did not respond to OPM’s evidence of compliance within 2 0 days, the Board would assume that the appellant was satisfied and would dismiss the peti tion 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 Novemb er 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 APPELL ANT REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO REQUES T ATTORNE Y 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

reg ulations 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 moti on 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 APPELL ANT 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 Pe rsonnel 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 United4

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 c ourt 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