Court Opinion

ID: 9960962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 17:01:00.478792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:05.860563
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

RICHARD TALAMANTE,                              DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          DE-0842-21-0222-I-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: April 16, 2024
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Richard Talamante , Phoenix, Arizona, pro se.

      Michael Shipley , 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
dismissed his appeal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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. We VACATE the initial decision
and instead AFFIRM the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) denying the appellant’s retirement application under the Federal
Employees’ Retirement System (FERS).

                                   BACKGROUND
         On October 3, 2001, the appellant resigned from his position in the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.         Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 19.    He
requested a refund of his retirement deductions on December 3, 2001, and OPM
processed his refund in the amount of $7,363.24 on April 24, 2002. Id. at 16, 20,
26-27.      The application for refund of retirement deductions informed the
appellant that payment of the refund would result in “permanent forfeiture of any
retirement      rights”   based   on   the   periods   of   Federal   service   which
the refund covered. Id. at 26.
         On March 9, 2021, the appellant applied for a deferred FERS annuity.
Id. at 10-13.    In an April 14, 2021 final decision, OPM denied his retirement
application, concluding that he was not eligible for an annuity because he had
previously applied for and been authorized a refund of his retirement deductions.
Id. at 9. OPM advised the appellant of his right to appeal the decision to the
Board. Id.
                                                                                    3

      The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging OPM’s final decision. IAF,
Tab 1.    He alleged that he did not recall ever signing for a refund of his
retirement deductions or receiving the refund check. Id. at 4, 6. OPM submitted
the appellant’s application for a refund of retirement deductions and records
reflecting that the appellant’s refund of retirement contributions was authorized
and paid. IAF, Tab 5 at 16, 20, 26-27. The administrative judge issued an order
for the appellant to show cause as to why he should not find that the appellant
requested and received a refund. IAF, Tab 6 at 2. The appellant did not respond.
The administrative judge then issued an order for the appellant to show cause as
to why he should not find that the appellant failed to state a claim for which relief
may be granted. IAF, Tab 7 at 2. The appellant did not respond. Two weeks
later, the administrative judge issued an initial decision that dismissed the appeal
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. IAF, Tab 8, Initial
Decision (ID) at 2.
      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision. Petition
for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. OPM has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 4.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The administrative judge erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
      An appeal may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if the appellant cannot obtain effective relief before the Board
even if his allegations are accepted as true.    Alford v. Department of Defense,
113 M.S.P.R. 263, ¶ 11 (2010), aff’d, 407 F. App’x 458 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if, taking the appellant’s
allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, he cannot
prevail as a matter of law. Id.
      Because the administrative judge relied on documentary evidence
submitted by the agency to conclude that the appellant requested and received a
refund of his retirement deductions despite the appellant’s assertions that he did
                                                                                       4

not request or receive a refund, ID at 1-2, it was inappropriate for the
administrative judge to dismiss the appeal for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See Williamson v. U.S. Postal Service, 106 M.S.P.R. 502,
¶ 9 n.* (2007); see also Ainslie v. United States, 355 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2004).     Thus, we vacate the administrative judge’s determination that the
appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As discussed
below, we instead affirm OPM’s final decision denying the appellant’s
application for retirement benefits.

We affirm OPM’s final decision denying the appellant’s retirement application.
         An individual seeking retirement benefits bears the burden of proving
entitlement to those benefits by preponderant evidence. Townsend v. Department
of Justice, 83 M.S.P.R. 427, ¶ 9 (1999); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(ii).               An
individual’s receipt of FERS retirement deductions for a period of service
generally voids his right to a FERS retirement annuity for that period absent a
redeposit of those deductions. 5 U.S.C. § 8424(a); Pagum v. Office of Personnel
Management, 55 M.S.P.R. 648, 651 (1992); 5 C.F.R. §843.202(b).                When, as
here, the appellant denies receipt of a refund of retirement deductions, he bears
the burden of proving such nonreceipt by preponderant evidence. Manoharan v.
Office of Personnel Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 159, ¶ 12 (2006). 2
         Here, the administrative judge noted that, based on the agency’s
documentary evidence, the appellant requested and received a refund of his
retirement deductions. ID at 1-2. In his petition for review, the appellant does
not dispute that he applied for a refund. PFR File, Tab 1. He reasserts that he did
not receive the check OPM claims that it sent to him and argues that he has never
been presented with proof that he was issued a refund. Id. at 4-5; IAF, Tab 1 at 4,

2
  As noted, this appeal involves an application for retirement benefits and the refund of
deductions under FERS. Manoharan and other cases cited in this decision involve
applications and refunds under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Because
of the similarities between the retirement systems, we discern no reason not to rely on
the cases involving the CSRS in this decision.
                                                                                        5

6. As discussed below, the appellant failed to prove nonreceipt of a refund of his
retirement deductions by preponderant evidence. 3
         The Board has previously held that normal office records, compiled in the
ordinary course of business, are admissible and are entitled to substantial weight.
Rint v. Office of Personnel Management, 48 M.S.P.R. 69, 72, aff’d per curiam,
950 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Table). When definitive proof that the appellant
actually received a refund no longer is available because of the appellant’s delay
in pursuing his claim, the Board has found that OPM’s ability to defend the
appeal has been impaired and that OPM would be unduly prejudiced if the Board
required it to produce definitive proof of the appellant’s actual receipt of the
check.     See Sosa v. Office of Personnel Management, 76 M.S.P.R. 683, 686
(1997) (finding OPM was prejudiced by 25-year delay in raising a claim of
nonreceipt of a check); DeLeon v. Office of Personnel Management, 49 M.S.P.R.
369, 373 (1991) (finding OPM was prejudiced by 23-year delay in raising a claim
of nonreceipt of a check).       In such circumstances, the Board has found that
OPM’s record of an appellant’s application for a refund, in conjunction with
records reflecting that it authorized payment, is sufficient to establish that the
appellant received the refund. DeLeon, 49 M.S.P.R. at 372-73; Rint, 48 M.S.P.R.
at 72. The Board has also found that, if an appellant can show that he placed
OPM on notice that he did not receive the requested refund within a period of
time such that OPM could have ascertained whether the check it mailed was

3
  As noted, the administrative judge ordered the appellant to show cause why his appeal
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
because he had obtained a refund of his retirement deductions. IAF, Tabs 6-7.
Although failure to state a claim was an incorrect legal theory, this error did not
prejudice the appellant as he was clearly informed that the issue in the appeal was his
receipt of a refund of his deductions. Id.; see Panter v. Department of the Air Force,
22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (stating that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to
a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision).
Furthermore, while the administrative judge failed to set forth the appellant’s burden of
proof, this error also did not prejudice the appellant as he did not respond and the
agency’s submission stated that the appellant bore the burden of proof by preponderant
evidence. IAF, Tab 5 at 5-6.
                                                                                  6

negotiated, he may be able to carry his burden to establish that the refund was not
paid.    See Manoharan, 103 M.S.P.R. 159, ¶ 18 (finding that the appellant
informing OPM of his nonreceipt of a check less than 4 months after its apparent
mailing would have allowed OPM to ascertain the status of the check).
        OPM’s routine records demonstrate that the appellant applied for a refund,
and that OPM authorized a refund. IAF, Tab 5 at 16, 20, 26-27. There is no
evidence that the check was not processed, and there is no evidence showing
nonreceipt of the refund by the appellant. In the present appeal, there is close to
a 19-year delay between when OPM issued the refund check and when the
appellant applied for retirement benefits and claimed nonreceipt of the refund
check. Id. at 13, 16. Because of the length of delay in raising the claim, and
because the only definitive record of actual payment is not available, OPM would
be unduly prejudiced were we to require that it produce definitive proof of actual
receipt of the check. See Rint, 48 M.S.P.R. at 72.
        Weighing    OPM’s    documentary    evidence    against   the   appellant’s
unsupported assertions, we find that the appellant has failed to overcome the
evidence to the contrary and prove by preponderant evidence that he did not
receive a refund of his retirement deductions in 2002. The appellant’s receipt of
his retirement deductions voided his right to an annuity based on his service
covered by the refund. See Pagum, 55 M.S.P.R. at 651. Thus, we affirm OPM’s
final decision denying the appellant’s FERS retirement application.
                                                                                          7

                           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 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:
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.
                                                                                    8

                             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
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
                                                                                  9

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
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
                                                                                     10

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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

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.
                                                                       11

      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.