Court Opinion

ID: 9927590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 16:00:30.826951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:53.487137
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GLORIA R. WHITE,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        AT-844E-17-0640-I-2

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: January 26, 2024
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Gloria R. White , Andrews, South Carolina, pro se.

      Linnette Scott , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) denying her disability retirement application.            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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

erroneous 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).
      On petition for review, the appellant argues, among other things, that the
record does not support certain facts stated in the initial decision, that the
administrative judge misapplied the law, that her medical conditions were
disabling, that she requested accommodation, and that she could not be
accommodated based on her supervisor’s statement. Petition for Review File,
Tab 1 at 1-3.      After considering the appellant’s arguments on review and
reviewing the record, we discern no material error in the initial decision.      In
particular, we conclude that the administrative judge properly considered the
totality of the evidence, including the appellant’s subjective testimony of
disability and the objective medical evidence, in finding that the appellant failed
to prove that she became disabled because of a medical condition while employed
in a position subject to the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) . We
discern no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s weighing of the evidence
in this regard and, thus, affirm the conclusion that the appellant has not
established entitlement to a disability annuity. 2
2
  Contrary to the administrative judge’s finding in the initial decision, the record
reflects that the appellant requested an accommodation on or before March 19, 2014,
and that her supervisor asked her to attach her most recent medical documentation to
                                                                                       3

      On appeal, the appellant claimed that OPM and/or her employing agency
discriminated against her because of her status as a veteran, in violation of the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335) (USERRA). White v. Office of
Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. AT-844E-17-0640-I-1, Initial Appeal
File (IAF), Tab 4 at 1. The administrative judge directed the filing of a separate
stand-alone USERRA appeal but that did not occur.             IAF, Tab 5 at 2.      The
administrative judge incorrectly concluded that the appellant’s USERRA claim
against OPM had to be adjudicated as a stand-alone appeal, but we discern no
apparent harm to the appellant’s substantive rights because there is no statutory
or regulatory time limit for filing a USERRA appeal. See Panter v. Department
of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984); 5 C.F.R. §§ 1208.12, 1208.16.
Accordingly, although the appellant does not reassert her USERRA claim on
review, she can file a new USERRA appeal with the Atlanta Regional Office
against OPM and/or her employing agency if she would like to pursue this claim.
      On appeal, the appellant also alleged that her employing agency failed to
comply with the settlement agreement in her removal appeal, which was handled
by the Dallas Regional Office.        IAF, Tab 4 at 1.      The administrative judge
intended to forward her claim against her employing agency to the Dallas
Regional Office for docketing as a petition for enforcement but that did not occur.
IAF, Tab 5 at 2. The appellant has not raised this issue on review and may not
want to pursue it. In the alternative, she can file a petition for enforcement with
her request. White v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. AT-844E-
17-0640-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 7 at 31. She made that request at least 6 months
before she applied for disability retirement in September 2014.            Id. at 23-38.
Regardless, the administrative judge’s factual error has not prejudiced the appellant’s
substantive rights and provides no basis for reversing the initial decision because she
was required to meet all of the criteria stated in 5 C.F.R. § 844.103(a) to qualify for a
FERS disability annuity and she failed to prove that she had a disabling medical
condition under FERS that required accommodation. See Panter v. Department of the
Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding that an adjudicatory error that is not
prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial
decision).
                                                                                          4

the Dallas Regional Office within 30 days of issuance of this Final Order. See
5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.181-1201.183.

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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:
3
  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 you wish to challenge the Board’s rulings on your whistleblower claims
                                                                                      7

only, excluding all other issues , 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. 4      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.

4
   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:                       ______________________________
                                     Jennifer Everling
                                     Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.