Court Opinion

ID: 9392090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 07:00:20.753393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.166553
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     AZZA MESHAL,                                    DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  SF-0831-21-0514-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 3, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Azza Meshal, San Jose, California, pro se.

           Alison Pastor, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

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

                                       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)

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     denying her request for a waiver of the interest on a required deposit to receive
     credit for a period of noncontributory service under the Civil Service Retirement
     System (CSRS).      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 or the erroneous application of the la w 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 t he 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).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The relevant facts are largely undisputed. The appellant was employed by
     the Department of the Army (Army) from May 24 to September 29, 1982, and
     October 4, 1982, to January 15, 1983, in a temporary appointment as an
     Engineering Technician.      Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9 at 50-51.            On
     January 16, 1983, the Army converted her position to a career-conditional
     appointment covered under CSRS, and her pay was subject to CSRS retirement
     deductions until her retirement on August 31, 2020.          Id. at 37, 41, 54.    As
     relevant here, from October 4, 1982, to January 15, 1983, her position was subject
     only to the payment of Social Security taxes under the Federal Insurance
     Compensation Act, and no retirement deductions were withheld from her salary.
     Id. at 50. In a retirement estimate dated August 30, 2020, the Army provided the
                                                                                       3

     appellant with the required deposit amount plus interest for the relevant period of
     noncontributory service. Id. at 58.
¶3         Subsequently, by letter dated November 3, 2020, OPM notified her that she
     could make one of the following elections affecting the computation of her
     retirement annuity: pay a deposit with interest for her service from October 4,
     1982, to January 15, 1983, or do not pay a deposit. Id. at 22-24. The appellant
     requested OPM to waive the interest amount for such deposit, claiming that the
     failure or delay to make deductions or pay the deposit was not her fault. Id. at 21.
     OPM issued an initial decision denying her request to waive the interest, and she
     requested reconsideration. Id. at 17, 19. On August 16, 2021, OPM issued a final
     decision sustaining its initial decision based on its determination that it had no
     authority to waive the statutory requirement of paying interest on deposits. Id.
     at 8-10.
¶4         The appellant filed an appeal with the Board challenging OPM’s final
     decision and requesting a hearing.     IAF, Tab 1 at 2.      Following a telephonic
     hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s
     reconsideration decision and finding that the appellant failed to prove her
     entitlement to retirement annuity benefits based on her noncontributory service
     when she has not paid any deposit with interest for such service . IAF, Tab 11,
     Hearing Audio (HA), Tab 13, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 8.
¶5         The appellant has filed a timely petition for review. Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a nonsubstantive response. PFR File,
     Tab 4.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6         An employee’s creditable civilian service after July 31, 1920, for which
     retirement deductions have not been made will not be included in computing the
     amount of her CSRS annuity unless she makes a deposit, with interest, for such
     service. Buie v. Office of Personnel Management, 386 F.3d 1127, 1131 (Fed. Cir.
                                                                                         4

     2004); see 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c), (e); 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(b). The administrative
     judge found, and the parties do not dispute on review, that the appellant never
     made a deposit for her period of noncontributory service from Octo ber 4, 1982, to
     January 15, 1983, and the required deposit amount plus interest totaled
     $1,637.00. 3    PFR File, Tab 1 at 3; ID at 6; IAF, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 9 at 8-9;
     HA (statement of the appellant).       We discern no basis for disturbing these
     findings.
¶7         Rather, the appellant reasserts on review that the interest accrued on her
     deposit should be waived based on equity.       PFR File, Tab 1 at 3; IAF, Tab 9
     at 17, 21.     The administrative judge found that the payment of interest on a
     deposit was a statutory requirement that the Board lacks authority to waive based
     on equitable considerations. ID at 5-7. We agree.
¶8         OPM and the Board have no discretion to waive statutorily imposed
     requirements, and the government cannot be estopped from denying benefits
     precluded by law even if the claimant was denied benefits because of her reliance
     on the mistaken advice of a government official. Hayden v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 58 M.S.P.R. 286, 293 (1993) (citing Office of Personnel
     Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990)). As relevant here, the statutory
     and regulatory provisions set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c), (e) and 5 C.F.R.
     § 831.303(b) require the payment of interest on a deposit and delineate the
     accrual of that interest. The appellant argues that the interest “should be waived
     because [she] was not given accurate or timely information about the deposit
     requirement” due to OPM’s administrative error.        PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.      The
     administrative judge properly found that there is no basis under statute,
     regulation, or equity for waiving the appellant’s interest obligation due to lack of
     notice, even if OPM gave her “false, improper, or misleading information
     concerning eligibility criteria for a retirement benefit, and [she] relied on that
     3
      OPM calculated the required deposit as $236.98 and the accrued interest as $1,400.02.
     IAF, Tab 9 at 62-67.
                                                                                           5

     information to her detriment.” ID at 7. We also discern no error in his finding
     that her requested waiver did not fall into any recognized exception “that allow[s]
     OPM the discretion to waive or forgive certain debts.” 4 ID at 6. Thus, we find
     the appellant has failed to prove her entitlement to retirement annuity benefits
     based on her noncontributory service from October 4, 1982, to January 15, 1983,
     when she has not paid any deposit with interest for such service.
¶9         Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition for review and affirm the
     initial decision.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
            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 d o 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

     4
      The administrative judge found that the exceptions codified at 5 U.S.C. § 8346(b) and
     5 C.F.R. §§ 831.1401, 831.2104(a) were inapplicable to the appellant’s request for a
     waiver. We agree.
     5
       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

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:
                              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
                                                                                  7

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. ____ , 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
                                                                                      8

      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
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. 6   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:

6
   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

                             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.
      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.