Court Opinion

ID: 9955039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 16:00:57.686338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:14.389841
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

    BRADLEY S. SHAFF,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                     DA-0845-19-0379-I-1

               v.

    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                          DATE: March 26, 2024
      MANAGEMENT,
                  Agency.

         THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

        Bradley S. Shaff , Jenks, Oklahoma, pro se.

        Carla Robinson , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) determining that he received an overpayment of $14,500.00 in Federal
Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) disability benefits and determined that he
failed to establish that he was entitled to a waiver of the overpayment or
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

adjustment of the collection schedule established by OPM.            On petition for
review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge applied the wrong
standard to determine that he received a payment he knew or should have known
was erroneous and erred in rejecting his argument that he detrimentally relied on
the overpayment.     Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the
following circumstances:     the initial decision contains erroneous findings of
material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute
or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the
administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial
decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of
discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and
material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due
diligence, was not available when the record closed.         Title 5 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).             After fully
considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,
which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
      The appellant argues in his petition for review that he met his burden to
demonstrate that he is entitled to a waiver of the overpayment and that the
administrative judge applied the wrong standard to determine that his reasons for
believing that his disability retirement annuity would continue were not sound.
Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 4-5. Specifically, he argues that he had a good
faith basis to believe that OPM had decided to continue his disability retirement
benefits indefinitely because of his experience with Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) and Social Security Administration (SSA) disability payments. Id.
He contends that a reasonable person could have reached the conclusion he did,
even if other reasonable people might disagree. Id. We are not persuaded.
                                                                                  3

      First, we note that OPM notified the appellant at the time it granted his
disability retirement annuity that such payments would stop 6 months from the
end of the calendar year in which his earning capacity is restored. Initial Appeal
File (IAF), Tab 8 at 19.    As the administrative judge observed, the appellant
agreed that his 2017 income exceeded the 80% limit, and he was aware that the
earnings limit impacted his entitlement to a continued disability annuity. IAF,
Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID) at 6. The appellant testified that, soon after he was
reemployed at the Department of Energy in January 2017, OPM explained to him
over the telephone that he would continue to receive payments until it determined
that he was returned to earning capacity.         Hearing Compact Disc (HCD)
(testimony of the appellant). He also testified that he received a survey from
OPM in late 2017 concerning his income, to which he replied truthfully, and that,
prior to June 2018, he received notice from OPM 2 that his disability annuity
payments would end at the end of June 2018. Id.
      Second, contrary to the appellant’s contention that his experience with
DVA and SSA disability benefits justified his belief that his OPM disability
retirement annuity would continue unabated, he explained his understanding that
DVA disability benefits had a different purpose than OPM disability annuity
payments and SSA disability benefits.      Id.   He testified that DVA disability
payments are intended to compensate him for injuries sustained in the past,
during his uniformed service, and that SSA and OPM disability payments were,
by contrast, intended to meet his need for current income.       Id.   Because the
appellant conceded that his earning capacity was restored in 2017, it is not
reasonable for him to have believed that his OPM disability retirement annuity,
which he explicitly understood was for exactly that purpose, i.e., to provide him
current income, id., would continue past June 2018.

2
  The appellant does not indicate in his testimony whether this notice was oral or
written, HCD (testimony of the appellant), and there is no document meeting this
description in the record.
                                                                                      4

      Under these circumstances, we agree with the administrative judge that it
was not reasonable for the appellant to believe that his OPM disability annuity
payments would continue past June 2018.               Because we agree with the
administrative judge that it was not reasonable under these circumstances for the
appellant to think that his OPM disability retirement payments would continue
indefinitely, a reasonable person would not accept the appellant’s assertion as
adequate to support such a conclusion. ID at 6-7. Therefore, the administrative
judge applied the correct standard, and the appellant failed to show by substantial
evidence that he was without fault in the creation of the overpayment. 5 U.S.C.
§ 8470(b); Vojas v. Office of Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 502, ¶ 18
(2011); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(p).

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file.            5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

3
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                         5

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.                5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition    to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit 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, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review    of   cases      involving   a   claim      of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
                                                                                  6

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.    5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. 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.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC 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
                                                                                      7

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC 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, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review     pursuant   to   the   Whistleblower       Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)
(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                                 U.S. Court of Appeals
                                 for the Federal Circuit
                                717 Madison Place, N.W.
                                Washington, D.C. 20439
4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                8

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit 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, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.