Court Opinion

ID: 9397933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 06:00:17.400124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.993910
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DENNIS A. YOUNG,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        AT-0831-18-0314-X-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 26, 2023
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Dennis A. Young, Destin, Florida, pro se.

      Tynika Faison Johnson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member
                           Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
  Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                      2

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1        On March 13, 2019, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial
     decision granting the appellant’s petition for enforcement and finding the Office
     of Personnel Management (OPM) in partial noncompliance with her prior initial
     decision issued on August 14, 2018. 3 Young v. Office of Personnel Management,
     MSPB Docket No. AT-0831-18-0314-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 11,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID). That decision reversed OPM’s final decision
     recomputing the appellant’s annuity based upon his failure to make a deposit for
     his post-1956 military service. Young v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB
     Docket No. AT-0831-18-0314-I-2, Refiled Appeal File (RAF), Tab 16, Refiled
     Initial Decision (RID).    For the reasons discussed below, we find OPM in
     compliance and DISMISS the petition for enforcement.

         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2        The administrative judge’s March 13, 2019 compliance initial decision
     found that OPM had not properly calculated the period for which the appellant
     owed interest on his post-1956 service deposit. CID at 3. OPM had charged
     interest for the period between 1986 and 2017. Id. The administrative judge
     noted that OPM’s regulations state that interest is charged to the date of deposit
     or commencing date of annuity, whichever is earlier.           Id.; see 5 C.F.R.
     § 831.105(d). Because the appellant’s annuity began on March 1, 2009, and his
     deposit was made sometime after September 18, 2018, the administrative judge
     found that the 2009 date is earlier, and should therefore mark the end of the
     interest period. CID at 3. The administrative judge therefore ordered OPM to
     recalculate the appellant’s post-1956 deposit using the interest period from 1986

     3
       The August 14, 2018 initial decision became the final decision of the Board after
     neither party filed a petition for administrative review by September 18, 2018. RID
     at 6.
                                                                                      3

     to March 1, 2009, and to refund to the appellant all money he had paid in excess
     of the recalculated deposit amount. CID at 4.
¶3        As neither party filed any submission with the Clerk of the Board within the
     time limit set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114, the administrative judge’s findings of
     noncompliance have become final, and the appellant’s petition for enforcement
     has been referred to the Board for a final decision on compliance pursuant to
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)-(c). Young v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB
     Docket No. AT-0831-18-0314-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1. On
     April 23, 2019, the Office of the Clerk of the Board issued an acknowledgement
     order directing OPM to submit evidence of compliance within 15 calendar days
     and affording the appellant the opportunity to respond to the agency’s evidence
     within 20 calendar days of OPM’s submission. Id. at 2.
¶4        On April 25, 2019, the appellant submitted a pleading in which he asserted
     that OPM had not contacted him or refunded him any money. CRF, Tab 2 at 1.
     OPM responded on May 21, 2019, stating that it had recalculated the interest on
     the appellant’s deposit and that, on April 30, 2019, it had issued the appellant a
     refund in the amount of $1,711.46, via electronic funds transfer. CRF, Tab 3 at 4.
¶5        The Office of the Clerk of the Board issued a second order on June 17,
     2019, directing OPM to submit a detailed narrative explanation setting forth how
     it calculated the refund due to the appellant. CRF, Tab 4. OPM submitted a
     response on June 26, 2019, which stated that documents attached to one of its
     previous submissions, a December 4, 2018 Agency Motion to Dismiss, explained
     how the interest amount was calculated. CRF, Tab 5; CF, Tab 9, at 12. OPM
     stated that this document, titled “Military Deposit Worksheet,” showed the
     amount of interest accrued between October 1, 2009, through October 1, 2017,
     and that those amounts totaled the amount it had refunded to the appellant,
     $1,711.46. Id. OPM further asserted that the appellant had not contested that he
     had received the payment. Id.
                                                                                        4

¶6         Because the evidence provided by OPM addressed interest payments for the
     period of October 1, 2009, through October 1, 2017, but not the period between
     March 1, 2009, and October 1, 2009, the Board issued another order on
     December 4, 2019, directing OPM to provide evidence that it had calculated the
     amount of interest paid by the appellant between March 1 and October 1, 2009,
     and refunded that amount to the appellant. CRF, Tab 6.
¶7         OPM submitted a response on March 4, 2020, reiterating that it had issued a
     refund to the appellant of $1,711.46 on April 30, 2019. CRF, Tab 7 at 4. OPM
     attached a copy of a letter sent to the appellant on that date, which explained that
     interest on a military deposit is compounded annually, and, in the appellant’s
     case, was computed based on a final Interest Accrual Date of October 1, 2008.
     Id. at 5-6.   Because of the once-annual accrual of interest, all interest on the
     deposit accrued on October 1, 2009, and no additional interest would have
     accrued between March 1 and October 1. Id. at 5. OPM also attached copies of
     the military deposit worksheets showing the amount of the deposit, the correct
     amount, and the amount of the refund.       Id. at 5, 7-11. The appellant did not
     submit a response, despite having been informed that failure to respond might
     cause the Board to find he was satisfied and dismiss the petition for enforcement.
     CRF, Tab 6, at 3.
¶8         We find that OPM has produced sufficient evidence to establish that it paid
     the appellant the appropriate amount of disability retirement benefits.        OPM
     supplied evidence that it recalculated the interest due on the appellant’s post -1956
     military deposit and refunded to him the amount of the overcharg e via a direct
     deposit payment of $1,711.46 on April 30, 2019. CRF, Tab 7 at 4. OPM has
     explained that interest accrues on a yearly basis; therefore, the interest accrued
     annually on October 1, 2009, and no additional amount would have been due for
     the period between March 1 (the date following the appellant’s separation date of
     February 28, 2009) and October 1, 2009. CRF, Tab 7 at 5.
                                                                                           5

¶9         In light of OPM’s evidence of compliance and the appellant’s failure to
     respond, we find OPM 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(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
           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 t ime
     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 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

     4
       Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have up dated
     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.
                                                                                         6

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
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
                                                                                  7

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 securi ty.       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
                                                                                      8

      (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 rev iew 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.

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.
                                                                              9

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