Court Opinion

ID: 9384875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 15:00:48.092509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.104773
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2238    Document: 24     Page: 1   Filed: 04/05/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  TINA M. SIMMONS,
                       Petitioner

                             v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2022-2238
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. SF-0842-16-0701-I-1.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: April 5, 2023
                  ______________________

    TINA SIMMONS, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

     STEPHEN J. SMITH, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.
                   ______________________

      Before DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 22-2238     Document: 24     Page: 2    Filed: 04/05/2023

 2                                             SIMMONS   v. OPM

    Tina Simmons appeals a decision from the Merits Sys-
 tems Protection Board affirming the Office of Personnel
 Management’s denial of her request for credit under the
 Federal Employees’ Retirement System. We affirm.
         FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
     In 1986, Congress created the Federal Employees’ Re-
 tirement System (“FERS”). See generally King v. Merit Sys.
 Prot. Bd., 105 F.3d 635, 636 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Off. of Pers.
 Mgmt., FERS Information, https://www.opm.gov/retire-
 ment-center/fers-information/eligibility/ (last visited Mar.
 20, 2023).
     Under the FERS system, retired federal employees
 may receive a monthly annuity based on the amount of
 “creditable service” they have accumulated. See 5 U.S.C.
 § 8411(b)(3). Under 5 U.S.C. § 8411(f)(2):
     An employee . . . may not be allowed credit . . . for
     [creditable] service . . . for which retirement deduc-
     tions . . . have not been made, unless such employee
     . . . deposits an amount equal to 1.3 percent of basic
     pay for such service, with interest.
     To receive benefits under the FERS, an employee must
 pay into the system. See id. If deductions were not with-
 held from the employee’s salary for a period of service, to
 have that period count towards the employee’s FERS an-
 nuity, the employee must pay a “deposit,” as calculated in
 Section 8411(f)(2). Id.; see also King, 105 F.3d at 637 (ex-
 plaining that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”)
 administers the FERS).
     Appellant Simmons requested to be allowed to pay a
 FERS deposit in installments. The OPM denied the re-
 quest, explaining that it would only accept a single, lump-
 sum payment. Simmons disputed the OPM’s decision and
 informed the OPM that she would not pay a deposit. As a
 result, Simmons’s monthly annuity is lower than what it
Case: 22-2238         Document: 24   Page: 3   Filed: 04/05/2023

 SIMMONS     v. OPM                                          3

 would be had she paid the deposit per the OPM’s instruc-
 tions.
                           BACKGROUND
                  Proceedings Before the OPM
     Simmons began working for the Department of Justice
 (“DOJ”) in 1982. SAppx14. 1 Before she retired, Simmons
 received and signed a Standard Form (SF) 3107-1, Certi-
 fied Summary of Federal Service. SAppx2. The form indi-
 cated that Simmons was missing out on potential
 retirement benefits for four periods of employment be-
 tween June 21, 1982, and September 30, 1988. Id. The
 form explained that for these periods no retirement deduc-
 tions from her salary were withheld and no deposits had
 been made. Id. Since she hadn’t made retirement contri-
 butions for these periods, her monthly annuity was going
 to be lower than it could have been had she made the re-
 tirement contributions. Id.
     On May 31, 2014, Simmons retired on disability. Id.
 On June 16, 2014, Simmons submitted a SF-3108, Applica-
 tion to Make Service Credit Payment to the OPM. Id. In
 this form, she expressed an intent to make the deposit for
 the four periods of prior service. Id.
     On September 27, 2014, the OPM notified Simmons
 that she had 30 days to make the required deposit of $1,189
 and that an election not to do so would be irrevocable.
 SAppx2–3. The notice also provided instructions for how
 to make the deposit. SAppx15. OPM’s notice explained
 that if Simmons made the deposit, her monthly retirement
 annuity would increase from $1,131 to $1,270. SAppx3. Fi-
 nally, OPM’s notice stated, “[i]nstallment payments are not
 permitted.” SAppx15.

        1   “SAppx” refers to the OPM’s supplemental appen-
 dix.
Case: 22-2238    Document: 24      Page: 4    Filed: 04/05/2023

 4                                            SIMMONS   v. OPM

    On October 29, 2014, Simmons responded that she
 would make the deposit. SAppx3. Contrary to OPM’s Sep-
 tember 27 instructions, Simmons sought to make the pay-
 ment in installments. Id. She stated this was necessary
 due to “financial hardship.” Id.
     The OPM responded on November 8, 2014 with a notice
 identical to the September 27 notice, except that it stated
 that the total deposit amount due was $1,729. 2 Id.; see also
 SAppx15. The notice repeated that Simmons could not pay
 the deposit in installments. SAppx15. Simmons did not
 pay the deposit, and on December 22, 2014, the OPM in-
 formed Simmons that her retirement annuity would not in-
 crease. SAppx3.
     On September 18, 2015, and February 24, 2016, Sim-
 mons submitted reconsideration requests to the OPM. Id.
 The OPM reopened the case on June 18, 2016. Id. The
 OPM again indicated that a deposit of $1,729 would in-
 crease Simmons’s monthly retirement annuity from $1,131
 to $1,270. Id.
     On June 30, 2016, the OPM informed Simmons that
 she had a final 45-day period to pay the full deposit. Id.
 On July 14, 2016, Simmons spoke with an OPM repre-
 sentative over the telephone and told the representative
 that she would not make the deposit. Id. She requested
 that the OPM waive the deposit requirement. Id.
     On July 21, 2016, the OPM issued its final decision,
 prior to the expiration of the 45-day period, stating that
 Simmons’s annuity had been finalized without the service
 credit for the four periods because Simmons had not paid
 the required deposit and interest. SAppx3–4.

     2  The record does not indicate why the OPM in-
 creased the total deposit amount, and Simmons does not
 challenge the increase as improper.
Case: 22-2238       Document: 24   Page: 5    Filed: 04/05/2023

 SIMMONS   v. OPM                                            5

         Merit Systems Protection Board Decisions
      Simmons timely appealed the OPM’s decision to the
 Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”). The MSPB af-
 firmed the OPM’s determination in an initial decision
 reached by an administrative judge (“AJ”), which was then
 affirmed by a three-member panel in the MSPB’s final or-
 der.
     The AJ found that Simmons “failed to meet her burden
 of proving she is entitled to service credit under FERS for
 her service prior to October 1, 1988 as it is undisputed that
 [Simmons] failed to make the requisite deposit after being
 given multiple opportunities to do so.” SAppx18. He ex-
 plained “that OPM has no discretion to waive the require-
 ments for deposit for nondeduction service nor is there any
 statutory or regulatory provision for paying for such de-
 posit in installments.” Id.
      The AJ also rejected Simmons’s argument that “the
 agency engaged in harmful procedural error.” SAppx19;
 see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(r) (“Error by the agency in the appli-
 cation of its procedures that is likely to have caused the
 agency to reach a conclusion different from the one it would
 have reached in the absence or cure of the error. The bur-
 den is upon the appellant to show that the error was harm-
 ful, i.e., that it caused substantial harm or prejudice to his
 or her rights.”). The AJ explained that Simmons “failed to
 identify any regulation that the agency purportedly vio-
 lated.” Id. Moreover, the initial decision discussed that
 Simmons was given multiple notices, beginning in 2012,
 that she was required to pay the deposit. Id.
     The AJ further rejected Simmons’s argument that the
 OPM deprived her of “minimum due process.” SAppx20.
 The AJ found no due process violation because “the [OPM]
 put [Simmons] on notice of the consequences of her failing
 to make a deposit for her non-deduction service” and Sim-
 mons “made a knowing decision not to pay the deposit.” Id.
 The AJ went on to explain that Simmons was notified of
Case: 22-2238     Document: 24     Page: 6    Filed: 04/05/2023

 6                                             SIMMONS   v. OPM

 the OPM’s initial decision, given the opportunity to request
 reconsideration, and provided a final decision. SAppx20–
 21.
      Simmons then petitioned for review of the MSPB’s ini-
 tial decision. SAppx1. In a final order, the three-member
 panel affirmed the AJ’s decision. SAppx2. The panel re-
 jected Simmons’s argument that the OPM should have al-
 lowed her to make her deposit in installments due to
 financial hardship because Simmons did “not identif[y] any
 statute or regulation that would have required OPM to of-
 fer her the opportunity to pay the deposit in installments.” 3
 SAppx6.
     In sum, the MSPB affirmed the OPM’s denial of Sim-
 mons’s request to pay the FERS deposits. Simmons ap-
 peals the MSPB’s determination to us.       We have
 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

     3   The panel agreed with the AJ’s initial decision con-
 cerning other issues. The panel rejected several arguments
 concerning the adequacy of the record. SAppx5, 7–8. It
 also decided that the OPM did not violate Simmons’s due
 process rights because Simmons “received notice setting
 forth the procedures to follow in making a deposit several
 times.” SAppx6. The panel further rejected Simmons’s ar-
 gument that the OPM “failed to honor the 45-day response
 period set forth in its June 30, 2016 letter” because Sim-
 mons forfeited this argument by not raising it before the
 AJ and because Simmons told the OPM before that re-
 sponse period expired that she would not pay the deposit.
 SAppx6–7.
Case: 22-2238       Document: 24   Page: 7   Filed: 04/05/2023

 SIMMONS   v. OPM                                          7

                     STANDARD OF REVIEW
     We review MSPB decisions for whether they are “(1)
 arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
 not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without proce-
 dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol-
 lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The MSPB’s legal determinations are re-
 viewed de novo. Becker v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 853 F.3d
 1311, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
                          DISCUSSION
     On appeal, Simmons largely repeats the arguments the
 MSPB rejected. We affirm the MSPB because Simmons
 has identified no legal error, and substantial evidence sup-
 ports the MSPB’s findings.
     First, Simmons argues that she should have been al-
 lowed to pay her deposit in installments. Op. Br. at 4–7.
 She asserts that “making a lump sum payment would have
 presented a financial hardship.” Id. at 7. She also explains
 that the OPM failed to follow guidance articulated in a doc-
 ument entitled “Information About Service Credit Pay-
 ments,” which she believes supports her request to pay in
 installments. Id. at 4–5.
     While we are sympathetic to Simmons’s circumstances,
 she has identified no statute or regulation requiring the
 OPM to accept deposit payments in installments, even
 where the employee is suffering “financial hardship.” 4 See

    4    Likewise, to the extent that Simmons is still re-
 questing that the OPM should have waived the deposit re-
 quirement, she has provided no authority indicating that
 this would be permissible. See Reply Br. at 2; 5 U.S.C.
 § 8411(f)(2); Schoemakers v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 180 F.3d
 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Neither courts nor adminis-
 trative agencies . . . have the authority to waive
Case: 22-2238     Document: 24     Page: 8    Filed: 04/05/2023

 8                                             SIMMONS   v. OPM

 id. Regarding the guidance document, Simmons has not
 explained how it supports her position or how it would be
 binding. Adams v. U.S., 59 F.4th 1349, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
 2023) (discussing a non-binding OPM memorandum (en
 banc)).
      Second, Simmons argues that the OPM failed to “com-
 ply with its own regulations” and did not follow “its proce-
 dures.” Form 11 at p.2. Simmons argues that the OPM
 wrongly “[f]inalized her [annuity] before the 45 day re-
 sponse period set forth in its June 30, 2016 letter giving her
 a final opportunity to make a deposit.” Op. Br. at 4.
     Simmons has not identified any regulatory or proce-
 dural violation. She also did not dispute before the MSPB
 that after the OPM gave her 45 days to pay the deposit, she
 told the OPM that she would not pay. 5 SAppx7. The OPM
 did not err by relying on Simmons’s waiver.
     Third, Simmons argues that the OPM delayed in
 “denying her request to pay the deposit.” Op. Br. at 4. We

 requirements . . . that Congress has imposed as a condition
 to the payment of federal money.”).
      5   On appeal, Simmons states, “I don’t recall stating
 that I would not be making the deposit.” Op. Br. at 5. She
 does not dispute, however, the MPSB’s explanation that
 Simmons did not raise this argument before the MSPB.
 See SAppx7 (“The appellant has not disputed OPM’s ac-
 count of the July 14, 2016 telephone call or argued that she
 would have made the full deposit had she been afforded the
 full 45 days in which to respond.”). We decline to consider
 this argument—which would require making factual find-
 ings as to the substance of her call with the OPM—for the
 first time on appeal. Cal. Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. U.S.,
 959 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We may deem an
 argument forfeited when a party raises it for the first time
 on appeal.” (collecting cases)).
Case: 22-2238       Document: 24    Page: 9   Filed: 04/05/2023

 SIMMONS   v. OPM                                           9

 disagree because she has not shown any delay by the OPM.
 The record shows that the OPM diligently provided Sim-
 mons multiple notices over several years explaining that
 she had to pay the deposit. Also, Simmons did not dispute
 before the MPSP that she refused to pay the deposit.
                         CONCLUSION
    The MSPB’s decision is supported by substantial evi-
 dence and not legally erroneous. We have considered Sim-
 mons’s remaining arguments, including those concerning
 due process and the MSPB’s evidentiary determinations,
 and find them unpersuasive. We affirm.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.