Court Opinion

ID: 9395488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 06:00:12.201099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:08.861858
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MICHAEL J. MCMAHON,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        PH-0831-17-0313-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 17, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Michael J. McMahon, Henryville, Pennsylvania, pro se.

           Michael Shipley, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finding
     that he had received a refund of his retirement deductions to the Civil Service
     Retirement System (CSRS) following his resignation from the Federal service.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 s tatute 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 di scretion,
     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).
¶2         The appellant was employed by the U.S. Postal Service until his resignation
     in February 1989. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 15. According to records
     produced by OPM, he requested a refund of his retirement deductions that month,
     and OPM authorized the release of funds in two separate payments in March and
     October 1989. Id. at 12-16. In April 2017, the appellant applied for deferred
     retirement benefits. Id. at 6-11. OPM denied his request in May 2017, finding
     that he was not eligible to receive annuity benefits under the CSRS because he
     had applied for and received a refund of his retirement deductions. Id. at 4-5. He
     subsequently filed an appeal with the Board. IAF, Tab 1. Following a telephonic
     hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s
     decision. IAF, Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 6.
¶3         On review, the appellant repeats his assertion that he does not remember
     receiving the refund checks authorized by OPM more than 28 years prior.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. He notes that the Application for
     Refund of Retirement Deductions (OPM Form 1425) in the record containing his
                                                                                         3

     signature also contains a signature from an agency official indicating that the
     agency had received a Standard Form 2802 (SF-2802) regarding the refund
     request, which cannot be retrieved.      Id.   Regarding the issue of whether he
     received notice of the consequences of receiving a refund of his retirement
     deductions to a future annuity, the appellant argues that the administrative judge
     erred in “thinking that everyone receives the proper documentation when they
     resign or retire from a job.” Id. Finally, he asserts that there was no “paper trail
     of evidence on the agency’s part” to prove that he received the refund of his
     retirement deductions and that a reasonable person would believe that he had not
     received the refund. Id. at 5.
¶4         For the reasons set forth in the initial decision, the appellant has failed to
     show by preponderant evidence 2 that he is entitled to the CSRS annuity he seeks.
     ID at 2-6; see Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel Management, 791 F.2d 138,
     140-41 (Fed. Cir. 1986).         Although he argues that OPM has not provided
     documentary evidence showing that he received the refund checks, the appellant
     bears the burden of proving nonreceipt of refunded retirement deductions and he
     has failed to do so. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5; see Manoharan v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 159, ¶ 12 (2006).         OPM’s normal business records
     showing the appellant’s application for a refund of his retirement deductions and
     OPM’s authorization of the two refund checks are entitled to substantial weight.
     See Rint v. Office of Personnel Management, 48 M.S.P.R. 69, 72, aff’d, 950 F.2d
     731 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Table). The administrative judge found that the appellant’s
     testimony that he did not recall requesting or receiving a refund, despite
     acknowledging that his signature was on the application form, did not overcome
     OPM’s evidence regarding the refund. ID at 4; see Hillen v. Department of the
     Army, 35 M.S.P.R. 453, 460 (1987). The administrative judge made a reasonable

     2
      A preponderance of the evidence is that degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable
     person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a
     contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
                                                                                       4

     credibility determination based on a review of the record as a whole, and we find
     no basis to disturb it on review. See Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d
     1288, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The appellant’s reference on review to an alleged
     additional SF-2802 completed with his request for a refund of his retirement
     deductions provides no basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s explained
     findings giving substantial weight to OPM’s busine ss records. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 4.
¶5           As noted in the initial decision, the record is unclear whether the copy of
     OPM Form 1425 signed by the appellant contained the reverse side with notice
     language regarding the forfeiture of his annuity rights and neither party produced
     a copy of the reverse side. ID at 5. To the extent that the appellant argues that
     the administrative judge’s reference to the description of the contents of OPM
     Form 1425 in the unpublished opinion in Wade v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 466 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2012), constituted a finding that the
     form he completed contained this notice language, he mischaracterizes the initial
     decision.    PFR File, Tab 1 at 4; ID at 5.    The administrative judge made no
     finding in the initial decision whether the appellant received no tice of the
     consequences of obtaining a refund of his retirement deductions.        ID at 4-5.
     Rather, the administrative judge correctly found that it was immaterial whether
     the appellant received such notice or the agency provided him an outdated form.
     ID at 5-6 (citing Youngblood v. Office of Personnel Management, 108 M.S.P.R.
     278, ¶ 13 (2008); Danganan v. Office of Personnel Management, 55 M.S.P.R.
     265, 269 (1992), aff’d, 19 F.3d 40 (Fed Cir. 1994) (Table)).         The appellant
     requested and received a refund of his CSRS retirement deductions and is not a
     current Federal employee making retirement deductions.        Therefore, he is not
     entitled to receive an annuity or redeposit his withdrawn deductions.          See
     5 U.S.C. §§ 8334(d)(1), 8342(a).      Federal retirement law does not provide an
     exception based on insufficient or misleading information about the consequences
     of applying for and receiving a refund of retirement deductions, and the Board
                                                                                           5

     lacks the authority to award an annuity based on such equitable considerations.
     See Conway v. Office of Personnel Management, 59 M.S.P.R. 405, 412 (1993);
     Danganan, 55 M.S.P.R. at 269; Mahan v. Office of Personnel Management,
     47 M.S.P.R. 639, 641 (1991).
¶6         Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm the initial decision.

                              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 a ppeal 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 thei r
     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 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

     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.
                                                                                         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 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
                                                                                      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
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

      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.

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdi ction 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. C ourt 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.