Court Opinion

ID: 9373502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:30.397346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.892370
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MARY C. MURRAY,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         PH-831M-21-0238-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: August 8, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Mary C. Murray, Canton, Massachusetts, pro se.

           Alison Pastor, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed as moot an appeal of a reconsideration decision issued by the Office of
     Personnel Management (OPM), which found that the appellant had been overpaid
     $14,364.47 in retirement annuity benefits, following OPM’s rescission of the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     decision. 2 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 interpretat ion 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 abu se 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 GRANT the agency’s petition for
     review. 3   Except as expressly MODIFIED to dismiss the appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         The agency contends that the administrative judge erred in dismissing the
     matter as moot in lieu of dismissing the matter for lack of jurisdiction. Petition
     for Review File, Tab 1 at 4-8.         We agree.      If OPM completely rescinds a
     reconsideration decision, its rescission divests the Board of jurisdiction over the
     appeal in which that reconsideration decision is at issue, an d the appeal must be
     dismissed. Rorick v. Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 597, ¶ 5
     (2008); Glasgow v. Office of Personnel Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 531, ¶ 5
     (2006). Although rescission of an OPM reconsideration decision can cause an
     appeal from that decision to become moot, see Rorick, 109 M.S.P.R. 597, ¶ 6, for

     2
      Neither party provided a copy of the reconsideration decision underlying this appeal,
     which was issued on or about April 5, 2021. Initial Appeal File, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 9 at 4.
     As a result, we are uncertain whether this appeal implicates the Civil Service
     Retirement System or the Federal Employees’ Retirement System. This uncertainty,
     however, is not material to the outcome of this matter.
     3
       We acknowledge the unusual posture of this appeal. To this end, the relief sought by
     OPM, i.e., dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in lieu of dismissal as moot, clarifies that
     the appellant may appeal any subsequent reconsideration decision to the Board. See
     Tamayo v. Office of Personnel Management, 56 M.S.P.R. 620, 622 (1993).
                                                                                          3

     an appeal to be deemed moot, the appellant must have received all of the relief
     that she could have received if the matter had been adjudicated and she had
     prevailed, see Harris v. Department of Transportation, 96 M.S.P.R. 487, ¶ 8
     (2004). The Board has clarified that an appeal may not be dismissed as moot
     until the agency has submitted acceptable evidence that it has actually afforded
     the appellant all such relief.      Smith v. Office of Personnel Management,
     113 M.S.P.R. 259, ¶ 7 (2010).
¶3         Here, OPM indicated that it completely rescinded the reconsideration
     decision underlying this appeal, Initial Appeal File, Tab 9 at 4-5; however, it
     neither alleged nor submitted any evidence indicating that it afforded the
     appellant all of the relief to which she would be entitled had she prevailed in her
     appeal, see Tamayo v. Office of Personnel Management, 56 M.S.P.R. 620, 622
     (1993) (concluding that, although OPM’s rescission of its reconsideration
     decision divested the Board of jurisdiction, it did not render the matter moot
     because the question of whether the appellant was entitled to an annuity
     remained); cf. Alexis v. Office of Personnel Management, 106 M.S.P.R. 315, ¶ 7
     (2007) (finding it appropriate to dismiss an overpayment appeal as moot when
     OPM waived the appellant’s obligation to repay the overpayment and refunded
     him the money that it had withheld from his retirement annuity to repay the
     same). Thus, although OPM’s rescission of its reconsideration decision divested
     the Board of jurisdiction over this appeal, it did not render the matter moot.
¶4         Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.              If the
     appellant is dissatisfied with any subsequent OPM decision regarding the
     apparent overpayment, she may request that OPM reconsider the decision and, if
     she is still dissatisfied, may appeal OPM’s reconsideration decision to the Board.
     See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8347(d)(1), 8461(e)(1); 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.110, 841.308. Any such
     appeal must be filed within the time limits set forth in the Board’s regulations.
     See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22.
                                                                                      4

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to revie w 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).

4
  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

      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
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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                  6

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

      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
                                                                                      7

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 cha llenge 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. 5   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

      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

5
   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

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:                            /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.