Court Opinion

ID: 9962027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 16:00:33.562229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:41.541360
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SHELLY K. SWAIN,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        PH-0843-21-0162-I-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: April 19, 2024
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Shelly K. Swain , Martinsburg, West Virginia, pro se.

      Michael Shipley , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The agency has filed a petition for review and the appellant has filed a
cross petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed the appeal of the
reconsideration decision issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
finding that the appellant was overpaid in survivor annuity benefits under the
Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS).             For the reasons discussed
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

below, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the initial decision,
DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and DENY the cross petition for
review.

                                 BACKGROUND
        The appellant filed a Board appeal of OPM’s reconsideration decision,
which found that she had been overpaid FERS survivor annuity benefits because
of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which awarded 50% of her late
husband’s gross monthly annuity to his former spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
Tab 1 at 5.     During the processing of the appeal, the agency rescinded the
reconsideration decision, and requested that the appeal be dismissed. IAF, Tab 5
at 4. The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal on
the grounds of mootness, explaining that, because the appellant had received all
the relief sought in her appeal, the appeal was moot. 2 IAF, Tab 6, Initial Decision
(ID) at 1-2.
        The agency filed a petition for review, arguing that the appeal should have
been dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction and requesting that the initial
decision be vacated. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 6-8. The appellant
filed a cross petition for review, arguing the merits of her case. PFR File, Tab 5
at 1.

                 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
        The appeal should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Board
has jurisdiction over determinations affecting an individual’s rights or interests
under FERS after OPM has issued a reconsideration decision. 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)
(1); Okello v. Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R. 498, ¶¶ 13-14
(2014); 5 C.F.R. § 841.308.       If OPM completely rescinds a reconsideration
decision, the Board no longer retains jurisdiction over the appeal in which that
2
  The administrative judge stated that the agency requested the appeal be dismissed as
moot. ID at 1-2. This was a mischaracterization of the agency’s request; the agency
requested that the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 5 at 4.
                                                                                      3

reconsideration decision was at issue, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. Glasgow v. Office of Personnel Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 531,
¶ 5 (2006).
      In the initial decision, the administrative judge relied on Jones v. Office of
Personnel Management, 52 M.S.P.R. 195, 197 (1992), in which the Board
dismissed the appeal as moot because OPM rescinded the reconsideration
decision and found that the appellant was entitled to the annuity he sought. ID
at 2. Here, OPM has not indicated whether the appellant will be successful in her
claim regarding the overpayment, only stating that the case would undergo
“further development,” and that, if applicable, it would issue a new final decision
with Board appeal rights. IAF, Tab 1 at 5. Accordingly, because OPM has not
made a decision on whether the appellant was entitled to the relief she sought, the
appeal has not been rendered moot.             See Hess v. U.S. Postal Service,
124 M.S.P.R. 40, ¶ 8 (2016) (stating that a case is moot when the issues presented
are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome of the case).
      Thus, because the administrative judge erred in dismissing the appeal on
the grounds of mootness, we vacate the initial decision and dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. Because we do not have jurisdiction over the appeal, we
cannot address the merits of the appellant’s case, and thus we deny the
appellant’s cross petition for review.     Schmittling v. Department of the Army,
219 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding that the Board cannot address any
merit-based claims unless jurisdiction is established). However, upon receipt of a
new reconsideration decision from OPM, the appellant may file another appeal
with the appropriate regional office consistent with the Board’s regulations. 3
3
  Upon receipt of any such appeal, the administrative judge should consider whether it
would be appropriate to notify the former spouse, Virginia, of the appeal and afford her
the opportunity to intervene, as the outcome of the appeal may affect her rights. See
5 C.F.R. § 1201.34 (the Board’s regulation governing intervenors); Painter v. Office of
Personnel Management, 106 M.S.P.R. 385, ¶¶ 10-11 (2007) (ordering that the
deceased’s children be afforded an opportunity to intervene in the appeal because the
                                                                                          4

                           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.
      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:

outcome may directly affect them).
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.
                                                                                    5

                             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
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
                                                                                  6

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

      (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
                                                                                      7

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).
      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.

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.
                                                                        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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.