Opinion ID: 4577107
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantial Evidence Supports the MSPB’s

Text: Finding that the Army Complied with the MSPB’s Cancellation Order as to Backpay The MSPB found that the Army had complied with the Cancellation Order by paying Mr. Foster the appropriate amount of backpay and interest, including deductions for health insurance and retirement benefits he had received. P.A. 5–6. 6 Mr. Foster argues that the Army failed to 6 As Mr. Foster chose to retire in lieu of removal, Foster, 2018 WL 2762189, he received retirement benefits. Case: 20-1691 Document: 28 Page: 7 Filed: 10/15/2020 FOSTER v. ARMY 7 provide a sufficient explanation for its gross backpay calculations and retirement deductions, improperly deducted health insurance premiums, and should have paid him overtime. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 4–8. We disagree with Mr. Foster. Substantial evidence supports the MSPB’s finding that the Army paid Mr. Foster the appropriate backpay for the period from October 1, 2017 to September 14, 2018, the dates of Mr. Foster’s first and second removals. First, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (“DFAS”) calculated the gross backpay Mr. Foster would have earned from October 1, 2017, to August 30, 2018. S.A. 322–24 (Back Pay Computation Summary Report); see S.A. 258–59 (detailing, inter alia, Mr. Foster’s “Pay Plan[,]” “Grade/Level[,]” “Step/Rate[,]” and “Total Salary” for the relevant period). Next, DFAS then added compensation for “[i]nterest on [b]ack [p]ay” and “[a]nnual [l]eave[.]” S.A. 320–21, 330–31. The record supports DFAS’s decision not to compensate Mr. Foster for “irregular overtime” hours he hypothetically could have worked during the backpay period, as he did not volunteer for any irregular overtime for the two-year period prior to his first removal. S.A. 3551 (providing that “Mr. Foster did not work . . . any irregular overtime hours” from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017). Next, DFAS deducted retirement benefits the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had paid Mr. Foster during the relevant period. S.A. 320–21; see S.A. 282 (detailing the retirement benefits paid to Mr. Foster “from 10/01/2017 thru 08/30/2018”). Finally, DFAS deducted further retirement, income tax, insurance, and investment contributions that Mr. Foster would have paid, had his first removal not occurred. S.A. 320 (detailing deductions for, inter alia, “Medicare[,]” “Federal Income P.A. 55–62 (detailing annuity payments paid to Mr. Foster). Case: 20-1691 Document: 28 Page: 8 Filed: 10/15/2020 8 FOSTER v. ARMY Tax[,]” “Dental Insurance[,]” and a Thrift Savings Plan). The above deductions are required by OPM regulations. See 5 C.F.R. § 550.805(e)(2)(i)–(3)(v). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the MSPB’s finding that the Army “demonstrated it properly paid [Mr. Foster] the amount of backpay due him as a result of” the MSPB’s Cancellation Order. P.A. 4. Mr. Foster’s primary counterargument is unpersuasive. Mr. Foster contends that the Army should not have deducted health insurance premiums from his backpay award because, subsequent to the MSPB’s Cancellation Order, he indicated to DFAS that he did not wish to have his health insurance reinstated during the backpay period. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 5; see P.A. 29–30 (Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay). Mr. Foster is incorrect. As noted, OPM regulations require that an agency offset a backpay award by “erroneous payments,” such as “[h]ealth benefits premiums, if coverage continued during a period of erroneous retirement.” 5 C.F.R. § 550.805(e)(2), (3)(iii). Here, the record establishes that Mr. Foster received at least several months of health benefits during his “erroneous retirement.” P.A. 57–62 (detailing deductions for “Blue Cross/Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan” premiums from February 2018 to July 2018). Thus, deduction of the health insurance premiums from the backpay award was consistent with OPM’s regulations, despite Mr. Foster’s later statement to DFAS that he did not wish to have health insurance reinstated. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the MSPB’s finding that the Army paid Mr. Foster the proper amount of backpay. 7 7 The Army argues that “the MSPB did not need to reach whether the [Army] could deduct health insurance premiums contrary to Mr. Foster’s election because the [Army] did not make such deductions.” Resp’s Informal Br. Case: 20-1691 Document: 28 Page: 9 Filed: 10/15/2020 FOSTER v. ARMY 9