Court Opinion

ID: 9373280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:54.993553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.777595
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RETHA G. DAVIDSON,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        AT-0845-17-0454-I-1

                  v.

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

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Retha G. Davidson, Deer Lodge, Tennessee, pro se.

           Kristine Prentice, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the reconsideration decision issued by the Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM) concerning an overpayment of her annuity. For the reasons

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review , VACATE the
     initial decision, and DISMISS the instant appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
¶2        The appellant was a Rural Carrier for the U.S. Postal Service.          Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 3. She applied for disability retirement in May 2008.
     IAF, Tab 7 at 73. OPM approved the application in October 2008. Id. at 64-66.
     Among other things, the approval letter explained that the appellant was required
     to apply for Social Security disability benefits and, if awarded, those benefit
     checks should not be negotiated until her disability retirement annuity was
     reduced. Id. at 65. In August 2009, OPM sent the appellant another letter, asking
     about the status of her application for Social Security disability benefits and
     reiterating that, if she was awarded those benefits, her disability retirement
     annuity must be reduced. Id. at 67.
¶3        In September 2013, OPM notified the appellant that she had been overpaid
     $59,278 in disability retirement benefits between July 2008 and August 2013, as a
     result of her Social Security disability benefits. Id. at 43-45. In October 2013,
     the appellant requested a waiver. Id. at 37-41. In March 2017, OPM issued a
     reconsideration decision that affirmed its prior decision, but wrote off $30,345.84
     of the overpayment because of the appellant’s bankruptcy, leaving a remaining
     balance of $28,932.16. Id. at 5, 7-10.
¶4        The appellant filed the instant appeal, challenging OPM’s reconsideration
     decision. IAF, Tab 1. After providing both parties an opportunity to present
     argument and evidence, the administrative judge affirmed OPM’s decision. IAF,
     Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID) at 1. She found that OPM proved the existence and
     amount of the overpayment, ID at 3-4, but the appellant failed to prove that she
     was entitled to a waiver of the overpayment or adjustment of th e repayment
     schedule, ID at 4-7. The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. OPM has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 4.
¶5        On review, the appellant submitted additional evidence relevant to her
     alleged overpayment, along with arguments as to why she failed to submit this
                                                                                           3

     evidence below. Compare PFR File, Tab 1 at 1, 27-35, with IAF, Tab 7 at 4.
     Under the unique circumstances, the Board issued an order to further develop the
     record. PFR File, Tab 5. OPM responded by reversing course and requesting that
     the Board now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. PFR File, Tab 6 at 4 -5.
     In a sworn statement, OPM indicated that it rescinded the reconsideration
     decision at issue in this appeal because the aforementioned evidence submitted on
     review warranted waiver, so it would not be collecting the $28,932.16
     overpayment. Id. at 5.
¶6         The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been
     given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.           Maddox v. Merit Systems
     Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In particular, if OPM rescinds
     a reconsideration decision, the rescission divests the Board of jurisdiction over
     the appeal in which the reconsideration decision is at issue, and the appeal must
     be dismissed. Martin v. Office of Personnel Management, 119 M.S.P.R. 188, ¶ 8
     (2013).   An exception to this rule does exist where OPM has rescinded its
     decision but failed to restore the appellant to the status quo ante.         Id., ¶ 10.
     However, that exception does not apply in this case because there is no indication
     that OPM ever began collecting the alleged overpayment.            IAF, Tab 7 at 10.
     Accordingly, we must vacate the initial decision and dismiss the instant appeal
     for lack of jurisdiction.

                                 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 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

     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.
                                                                                        4

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:
                              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
                                                                                    5

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. ____ , 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,
                                                                                      6

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
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

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.
                                                                                   7

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 w ebsite 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.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                        8

      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.