Court Opinion

ID: 9373667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:35.367271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.076549
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DIONISIO M. MAYNES,                              DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                         SF-0831-05-0447-I-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                              DATE: May 27, 2022
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Dionisio M. Maynes, La Union, Philippines, pro se.

      Natalio M. Maynes, La Union, Philippines, pro se. 2

      Gregory Stewart, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE
                          Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                            Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
  Because Natalio M. Maynes alleges that he is the deceased appellant’s son , but he has
not filed a motion to substitute in this matter, we refer to all his submi ssions and
arguments as from “the petitioner.”
                                                                                        2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The petitioner has filed a petition for review of the initial decision that
     denied the appellant’s request for a deferred annuity under the Civil Service
     Retirement System (CSRS).       For the reasons set forth below, the petition for
     review is DISMISSED.
¶2         The petitioner represents that the appellant is now deceased. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. In February 2005, the appellant filed a Board appeal
     of the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which dismissed,
     as untimely filed, his request for reconsideration of OPM’s decision denying his
     application for a deferred annuity under CSRS. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1
     at 3-4, Tab 7, Subtab 2. In August 2005, the administrative judge issued an initial
     decision finding that OPM abused its discretion by not extending the appellant’s
     time limit for requesting reconsideration.      IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 4-5. Nonetheless, the administrative judge found that the claim was without
     merit because the appellant failed to prove his entitlement to a CSRS annuity. ID
     at 6-8.
¶3         Eleven years later, in September 2016, the petitioner filed a letter with the
     Clerk of the Board. PFR File, Tab 1. The letter suggested that the petitioner was
     seeking either a review of the initial decision on behalf of the appellant or
     survivor’s benefits on his own behalf. Id. The Clerk: (1) informed the petitioner
     that, to litigate on the appellant’s behalf, the petitioner had to file a motion for
     substitution within 90 days after the appellant’s death or show good cause for the
     delay in filing; and (2) invited the petitioner to file such a motion. PFR File,
     Tab 2 at 1 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 1201.35).        In addition, the Clerk notified the
     petitioner that, if his letter was meant to operate as a petition for review of the
     initial decision, then it was untimely filed.     Id. at 2.   The Clerk invited the
     petitioner to file a motion to accept the filing as timely or to waive the time
     limits. Id. at 2, 7-8. The petitioner did not file either motion.
                                                                                        3

¶4            If an appellant dies or is otherwise unable to pursue the appeal, the
     processing of the appeal will only be completed upon substitution of a proper
     party.     5 C.F.R. § 1201.35(a).    Given that the petitioner seeks to litigate the
     petition for review on behalf of the appellant, but he has not established that he is
     entitled to substitute for the appellant, the petition for re view will be dismissed
     on this ground.
¶5            Notwithstanding, the petition for review is untimely filed without good
     cause. To be timely, a petition for review must be filed within 35 days of the date
     of the initial decision’s issuance or, if the decision was received more than 5 days
     after the date of issuance, within 30 days after receipt. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).
     Because the petitioner has not alleged that the initial decision was received more
     than 5 days after the date of issuance, the petition for review had to be filed by
     September 9, 2005. ID at 9. Because it was mailed on September 27, 2016, it is
     untimely by more than 11 years.        PFR File, Tab 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(l)
     (reflecting that the date of filing a document by mail is the postmark date).
¶6            The Board will waive its filing deadline only upon a showing of good cause
     for the delay. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.12, 1201.114(g). To establish good cause, a
     party must show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the
     circumstances of his case.          Gaetos v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     121 M.S.P.R. 201, ¶ 5 (2014). The petitioner has not shown good cause, and
     therefore the petition for review also will be dismissed as untimely filed.
¶7            Finally, because the petitioner seeks to “rescue the un paid [l]ump sum of
     late father,” the petitioner’s letter could be read as an application for survivor’s
     benefits rather than a petition for review. PFR File, Tab 1. Generally, the Board
     has jurisdiction over determinations affecting an appellant’s rights or interests
     under the retirement system only after OPM has issued a final or reconsideration
     decision.     Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, 97 M.S.P.R. 193, ¶ 6
     (2004); 5 C.F.R. § 831.110.         While the Board may take jurisdiction over a
     retirement appeal in the absence of an OPM reconsideration decision if an
                                                                                           4

     appellant requested such a decision and the evidence indicates that OPM does not
     intend to issue a final decision, Johnson, 97 M.S.P.R. 193, ¶ 6, the petitioner’s
     letter does not suggest that he ever attempted to raise a survivor’s benefits claim
     before OPM. Instead, he only references OPM’s denial of his father’s deferred
     annuity. PFR File, Tab 1.
¶8         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. This is the final decision
     of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness of the petition for
     review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the Board regarding the
     appellant’s deferred annuity.

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

     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

      (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
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
                                                                                  6

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
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:
                                                                                      7

                            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 Boar d’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 war rants 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.