Court Opinion

ID: 9406181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 06:00:28.103758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.596174
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CAROLINA A. REYES,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-0843-17-0542-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: June 29, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Randle R. Edwards, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

           Carl E. Hobbs, II, 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
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction her appeal of an Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM) final decision denying her application for a Federal
     Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) basic death benefit. For the reasons set

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     forth below, the appellant’s petition for review is DISMIS SED as untimely filed
     without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         On May 25, 2017, the appellant filed a Board appeal of OPM’s final
     decision denying her application for a basic employee death benefit under FERS.
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. On August 1, 2017, the administrative judge
     issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the
     basis that OPM had rescinded the final decision under appeal.         IAF, Tab 11,
     Initial Decision (ID). The administrative judge noted that, in moving to dismiss
     the appeal, OPM asserted its intention to grant the appellant’s applic ation for
     death benefit.   ID at 1-2; IAF, Tab 9.     The administrative judge notified the
     appellant of her right to file a petition for review and of the time limits for doing
     so. ID at 3-4.
¶3         On November 21, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for review, objecting
     to the way that OPM had handled her case and requesting that th e Board hold
     OPM accountable for its promise to grant her application. Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1.     The Clerk of the Board issued an order, notifying the
     appellant that her petition for review appeared to be untimely and directing her to
     file a motion to accept the appeal as timely or to waive the filing deadline for
     good cause shown. PFR File, Tab 2. The appellant responded, requesting that
     the Board accept her petition for review as timely and explaining that the OPM
     had recently contacted her to say that OPM no longer intended to grant her
     application. PFR File, Tab 3. The Clerk of the Board then issued an order to
     OPM, directing it to file evidence and argument to show that it had completely
     rescinded its prior decision by restoring the appellant to the status quo ante. PFR
     File, Tab 4. OPM failed to respond to the order. However, on August 22, 2018,
     the appellant filed a request to withdraw her petition for review based on “the
     representation of [OPM] that the final reconsideration dec ision has been
                                                                                          3

     rescinded in full and that OPM has now granted my application for Basic
     Employee Death Benefits . . . .”       PFR File, Tab 7.      OPM consented to the
     withdrawal. Id.

                       DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4         Withdrawal of a petition for review is an act of finality that has the effect of
     removing the appeal from the Board’s jurisdiction. Okello v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 112 M.S.P.R. 563, ¶ 5 (2009). Hence, a withdrawal must be by
     clear, unequivocal, and decisive action. Leno v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     90 M.S.P.R. 614, ¶ 3 (2002). In this case, the appellant’s withdrawal appears to
     be conditioned on OPM’s granting her application for d eath benefits, and
     therefore does not meet that standard. PFR File, Tab 7; see Ryan v. Department
     of the Air Force, 117 M.S.P.R. 362, ¶ 9 (2012). Notably, the record does not
     contain any evidence to support a finding that the conditions of the withdrawal
     have, in fact, been met. Finding that the parties would not be prejudiced by a
     disposition of the petition for review on timeliness grounds, we deny the
     appellant’s request for a withdrawal and proceed to the issue of timeliness.
¶5         A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the initial decision
     is issued or, if the appellant shows that she received the initial decision mo re than
     5 days after it was issued, within 30 days after the date of receipt. Williams v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 237, ¶ 7 (2008); 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e). In this case, we find that the petition for review was untimely
     filed by 42 days. The initial decision was issued on August 1, 2017, and it was
     served the same day on the appellant by mail and on her representative by email.
     ID at 1; IAF, Tab 12. There is no indication that either the appellant or her
     representative failed to receive the initial decision in due course, and so th e filing
     deadline was September 5, 2017, 35 days from the date of the initial decision.
     See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e); see also Williamson v. U.S. Postal Service,
     106 M.S.P.R. 502, ¶ 7 (2007) (explaining that, under Board precedent and
                                                                                       4

     regulations, documents placed in the mail are presumed to be received in 5 days).
     The appellant filed her petition for review 42 days later, on November 21, 2017,
     as indicated by the postmark on the envelope in which she mailed it. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 6; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(l) (providing that the date of filing by mail is
     determined by the postmark date).
¶6        The Board will waive the filing deadline for a petition for review only upon
     a showing of good cause for the filing delay. Lawson v. Department of Homeland
     Security, 102 M.S.P.R. 185, ¶ 5 (2006); 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.12, 1201.114(g). To
     establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party must show that she exercised
     due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of her case.
     Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980).               To
     determine whether an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider
     the length of the delay, the reasonableness of her excuse and her showing of due
     diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented
     evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her
     ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune
     which similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely file her
     petition. Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995),
     aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table).
¶7        In this case, the appellant’s explanation for the delay is that, on
     November 15, 2017, after the filing deadline had already passed, OPM’s
     representative left her a voicemail stating that he forwarded her death benefit
     application to the office within OPM responsible for adjudicating it, but the office
     did not agree that there was sufficient basis to grant the application. PFR File,
     Tab 3 at 3, 5.    He stated that the appellant would be receiving a new final
     decision with notice of Board appeal rights. Id. at 5. We find that the appellant
     is essentially claiming that her untimely filing should be excused because it was
     based on new and material evidence. See Lybrook v. Department of the Navy,
                                                                                        5

     51 M.S.P.R. 241, 244 (1991) (explaining that the discovery of new and material
     evidence may provide good cause to waive the deadline for filing a petition for
     review). We find that the OPM representative’s November 15, 2017 voicemail
     constitutes new evidence because it was unavailable prior to the September 5,
     2017 filing deadline, and that the appellant acted diligently by filing her petition
     promptly within a week after receiving it. See Brown v. Department of the Army,
     108 M.S.P.R. 90, ¶ 8 (2008) (finding good cause to waive the filing deadline
     when the appellant filed his petition within 5 days of receiving new and material
     evidence). However, we find that the appellant has not established good cause to
     waive the filing deadline because the information contained in the OPM
     representative’s voicemail is not material to the outcome of the appeal.        See
     Levenson v. Department of Transportation, 38 M.S.P.R. 292, 295-96 (1988)
     (declining to waive the petition for review filing deadline because the new
     evidence that the appellant submitted was not material to the outcome of the
     appeal).

¶8        The administrative judge dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on
     the basis that OPM had rescinded its final decision. ID at 1 -2. It is well-settled
     that OPM’s complete rescission of a final decision divests the Board of
     jurisdiction over an appeal of that decision. Richardson v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 101 M.S.P.R. 128, ¶ 3 (2006).         However, a complete rescission
     requires OPM to return the appellant to the status quo ante. Campbell v. Office of
     Personnel Management, 123 M.S.P.R. 240, ¶ 7 (2016).              In this case, the
     appellant’s status quo ante, prior to OPM’s final decision, is that she was not in
     receipt of any death benefits and that she was awaiting a final decision on her
     application. IAF, Tab 1 at 7-19. The evidence in this appeal, filed both below
     and on petition for review, shows that exactly these same conditions existed after
     OPM rescinded its final decision.      IAF, Tab 9 at 5; PFR File, Tab 3 at 5.
     We therefore find that OPM’s rescission was complete.                Although the
                                                                                        6

      administrative judge mentioned in her initial decision that OPM intended to issue
      a final decision granting the appellant’s application, ID at 2, this fact was not
      material to the outcome of the appeal. OPM’s rescission of its final decision
      would still have divested the Board of jurisdiction regardless of whether OPM
      had made any such assurances.        See, e.g., Glasgow v. Office of Personnel
      Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 531, ¶ 5 (2006) (dismissing the appellant’s disability
      retirement appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that OPM rescinded its
      previous decision dismissing the application as untimely and intended to issue a
      new decision on the merits). In other words, granting the appellant’s application
      was not part of returning her to the status quo ante. Because the information
      contained in the OPM representative’s voicemail was not material to the
      jurisdictional issue, we find that the discovery of this evidence does not pro vide
      good cause to waive the deadline for filing the petition for review. See Upshaw v.
      Department of Defense, 56 M.S.P.R. 94, 97 (1992), aff’d, 5 F.3d 1502 (Fed. Cir.
      1993) (Table).
¶9         It appears, although it is by no means certain, that OPM may have since
      issued a new final decision on the appellant’s application for death benefits, and
      that the appellant is satisfied with that decision.           PFR File, Tab 6.
      Nevertheless, if the appellant is not satisfied with OPM’s new final decision, she
      has the right to file a separate Board appeal to contest it. See Rorick v. Office of
      Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 597, ¶¶ 5-7 (2008).
¶10        Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. 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 jurisdictional issue.
                                                                                      7

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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 seeki ng 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).

2
  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

      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
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
                                                                                  9

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
                                                                                     10

      (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. 3 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.

3
   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

      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 webs ite 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.