Court Opinion

ID: 9409701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 07:00:26.088289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:52.762944
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GRACIE V. SMITH-WHITE,                          DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-831M-16-0202-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: July 18, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Gracie V. Smith-White, Greenbelt, Maryland, pro se.

           Karla W. Yeakle, 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
     denied the appeal of her annuity benefit reduction. 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law 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
     the 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 appellant retired from the Department of Health and Human Services
     on March 3, 2005, and at the time of her retirement, she elected not to make a
     deposit for her post-1956 military service.      Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8
     at 17-24, 35-37. On November 16, 2015, the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM) issued a final decision informing the appellant that, because she had now
     reached the age of 62 and was eligible for Social Security benefits, it had
     recalculated her annuity to remove credit for her post-1956 military service. IAF,
     Tab 8 at 6-7.
¶3         Following receipt of OPM’s final decision, the appellant timely filed an
     appeal seeking to challenge the recalculation. IAF, Tab 1. Because the appellant
     did not request a hearing, id. at 1, the administrative judge issued a close of
     record order and set a date for a close of record conference , IAF, Tab 3. OPM
     failed to appear for the initial close of record conference, but the appellant failed
     to appear for the rescheduled close of record conference and failed to contact the
     administrative judge, as she was repeatedly ordered to do regarding rescheduling
     the close of record conference. IAF, Tabs 5, 10-13. Based on the appellant’s
                                                                                          3

     failure to comply with multiple orders, the administrative jud ge imposed the
     sanction of canceling the close of record conference and issuing the initial
     decision based on the written record. IAF, Tab 14. Before issuing the initial
     decision, the administrative judge afforded the parties an opportunity to make
     additional submissions, but neither party took advantage of that opportunity. Id.
¶4         In the initial decision, the administrative judge found that the appellant was
     provided with the necessary information regarding her need to make a deposit to
     obtain credit for her post-1956 military service, and of the consequences of
     failing to make the deposit. IAF, Tab 15, Initial Decision (ID) at 5-8. Further,
     the administrative judge found that the appellant failed to show that OPM
     committed an administrative error in processing her retirement application, and
     that she offered no evidence to support her unsworn claim that she provided OPM
     with the required deposit at the time of her retirement. ID at 6-7. Accordingly,
     the administrative judge affirmed OPM’s final decision. ID at 1, 8.
¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review. 2 Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. OPM has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 6.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6         On review, the appellant alleges that her employing agency’s Human
     Resources Department and OPM completed her retirement application for her and
     provided her with incorrect information about her annuity. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.
     She also asserts that the recalculation has resulted in financial hardship. Id.

     2
       The appellant’s petition for review was untimely filed on January 16, 2017, over
     8 months after the May 11, 2016 filing deadline. ID at 8; Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. In a motion to waive the time limit, the appellant asserts that good cause
     exists for her untimely filing because she was forced to leave her home for a period of
     time due to a sewage spill, and all of her documents related to this appeal were boxed
     up during that time. PFR File, Tab 4 at 1-3; see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(e)(1)(A); 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e). In light of our disposition in this appeal, we do not reach the issue of
     the timeliness of the appellant’s petition for review. See Dean v. U.S. Postal Service,
     115 M.S.P.R. 56, ¶ 13 n.5 (2010).
                                                                                        4

¶7        A retiring civil service annuitant is entitled to receive credit for active duty
     military service performed after 1956 under both the Civil Service Retirement
     System (CSRS) and the Social Security System, but only if the annuitant deposits
     with the Civil Service Retirement Fund an amount equal to 7% of the person’s
     total post-1956 military pay before their separation from the service upon which
     her entitlement to an annuity is based.         McCrary v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 459 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see 5 U.S.C. § 8334(j);
     5 C.F.R. § 831.2104(a). If the deposit is not made before separation, OPM is
     required to recalculate the employee’s annuity to exclude credit for post-1956
     military service when the individual first becomes eligible for Social Security
     benefits, i.e., as of the first day of the month in which she becomes 62 years of
     age. 5 U.S.C. § 8332(j)(1); see McCrary, 459 F.3d at 1347.
¶8        When an employee did not make or complete the required deposit before
     separation due to an administrative error, she may be able to make the deposit in
     a lump sum payment within a time set by OPM. 5 C.F.R. § 831.2107(a)(1). The
     Board may find administrative error and waive the deposit deadline when: (1) the
     appellant shows that she relied on misinformation in electing not to make the
     deposit; (2) an application package contains obvious errors or internal
     inconsistencies in which OPM or the employing agenc y has an obligation to
     investigate and resolve before processing the application; or (3) an employee
     elected to make the deposit and the paperwork is in order, but neither the
     employing agency nor OPM followed through to ensure the deposit was made.
     McDevitt v. Office of Personnel Management, 118 M.S.P.R. 204, ¶ 7 (2012).
¶9        OPM’s provided evidence included the retirement application instructions
     given to the appellant prior to her separation.     IAF, Tab 8 at 13-16.      Those
     instructions specify that failure to make a deposit for post-1956 military service
     would result in the benefit reduction now being appealed. Id. at 16. In addition
     to the instructions, the appellant’s retirement application, Standard Form 2801
     (SF-2801), included the following question:
                                                                                              5

                If any of your military service occurred on or after January 1,
                1957, have you paid a deposit to your agency for this service?
                (You must pay this deposit to your agency before separation.
                You cannot pay OPM after you retire.)
      Id. at 18. The appellant answered “No” to that question and signed the form. Id.
      Further, the provided “Agency Checklist” of retirement procedures, signed by a
      Human Resources Specialist at the appellant’s employing agency, also has the
      box checked indicating that the appellant was counseled about the effects of her
      decision not to make a post-1956 military service deposit. Id. at 23-24. 3 Finally,
      OPM’s Form 1515 includes instructions explaining the consequences of failing to
      make the 7% post-1956 military service deposit.           Id. at 36-37.   The appellant
      checked the box on this form indicating that she did not want to make the deposit
      and she understood that such decision was irrevocable, and signed that form on
      March 24, 2005. Id. at 34-35.
¶10         The Board has found that the provided 1990 version of the SF-2801, which
      asks whether the retirement applicant submitted a deposit for post -1956 military
      service, is clearly worded. King v. Office of Personnel Management, 97 M.S.P.R.
      307, ¶ 25 (2004), aff’d sub nom. Grant v. Office of Personnel Management,
      126 F. App’x 945 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Additionally, the instructions plainly explain
      that an individual will receive credit for post-1956 military service after
      becoming eligible for Social Security benefits only if she makes a deposit before
      leaving Federal service, while failure to pay the deposit will result in elimination
      of CSRS credit for the post-1956 military service when she becomes eligible for
      Social Security benefits. IAF, Tab 8 at 13-16. Accordingly, the appellant was
      properly apprised of her opportunity to make a deposit for her post-1956 military
      3
        Although the Agency Checklist includes a section for the employing agency’s Payroll
      Officer to certify a number of answers related to the appellant’s retirement application,
      it does not appear that the Payroll Officer signed off on that checklist. IAF, Tab 8
      at 24. However, because it is clear that the appellant was counseled by her employing
      agency’s Human Resources Specialist regarding the consequences of failing to make a
      post-1956 military service deposit, id. at 23, we attribute no significance to the absence
      of the Payroll Officer’s certification.
                                                                                            6

      service prior to separation and instructed of the consequences of not doing so.
      King, 97 M.S.P.R. 307, ¶¶ 7, 25; Drury v. Office of Personnel Management,
      79 M.S.P.R. 493, ¶¶ 12-13 (1998).
¶11         The appellant completed the SF-2801 and the Form 1515 and signed both
      documents. IAF, Tab 8 at 17-24, 35-37. Her unsworn statement in her petition
      for review alleging that the agency completed the paperwork for her fails to
      outweigh OPM’s documentary evidence, including the signed SF-2801 and
      Form 1515. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3; see Rint v. Office of Personnel Management,
      48 M.S.P.R. 69, 72 (finding that normal office records, compiled in the ordinary
      course of business, are admissible and entitled to substantial weight), aff’d,
      950 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Table).         Therefore, we deny the petition for
      review and affirm the initial decision, upholding OPM’s reduction of the
      appellant’s annuity benefits.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
            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.

      4
        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.
                                                                                         7

      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
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
                                                                                  8

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
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:
                                                                                      9

                            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. 5   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).

5
   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.
                                                                                10

      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 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.