Opinion ID: 3162617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings in front of the Board.

Text: Before the Board, Ms. Richardson repeated her argument that she should be entitled to recomputation of her retirement annuity based on the two periods of service described above. Repeating the correct legal analysis stated by OPM, the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) ex- plained that without deposits having been made for the periods of service in question, Ms. Richardson is not entitled to consideration of those periods in the calculation of her retirement annuity. The AJ also referred to two matters that Ms. Richardson had not presented to OPM in her request for recalculation of her retirement annuity. First, Ms. Richardson argued to the AJ that she is entitled to recalculation based on creditable service for other periods of time. 4 RICHARDSON v. OPM Because OPM only addressed the two specific time periods described above, and not the other times to which Ms. Richardson made reference to the AJ, and because the AJ’s prehearing summary referred to those two periods as the only ones reviewable in Ms. Richardson’s appeal, the AJ declined consideration of the additional periods of service. The AJ did, however, expressly state that with regard to any such additional periods, Ms. Richardson is entitled to return to OPM and raise those dates with it. And, if OPM refuses to credit any such additional periods of service, the AJ noted that Ms. Richardson may file a separate appeal to the Board challenging OPM’s refusal. Second, the AJ noted that Ms. Richardson challenged OPM’s calculation of her “high 3” salary level, for purposes of her retirement annuity. The AJ noted that Ms. Richardson had not raised that issue at the prehearing conference, nor in her reconsideration request to OPM. Consequently, the AJ declined to consider Ms. Richardson’s contention that her “high 3” salary level was incorrectly computed. But, as with the issue of additional periods of service, the AJ expressly noted that Ms. Richardson is free to raise the issue of her “high 3” salary level upon return to OPM, and to appeal to the Board from any adverse decision by OPM on the issue. Because no deposits were made to cover the two spe- cific periods of time before OPM and the Board, the AJ ruled Ms. Richardson ineligible as a matter of law to inclusion of those periods in her annuity retirement calculation. The decision of the AJ became the final decision of the Board, and Ms. Richardson timely sought review in this court.