Court Opinion

ID: 9957876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 16:00:57.83392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:36.161507
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DAVID A. STEVENS,                               DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        AT-0842-21-0545-I-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: April 4, 2024
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      David A. Stevens , Munford, Tennessee, pro se.

      Carla Robinson , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision,
which affirmed the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
finding that the appellant’s nonappropriated fund service was not creditable
towards his Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) annuity.              For the

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

reasons discussed below, we DENY the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE
the initial decision, and DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                 BACKGROUND
      On January 5, 1987, the appellant started a Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality (NAFI) position with the Department of the Navy (Navy) and
enrolled in the Navy’s NAFI retirement program. 2         Initial Appeal File (IAF),
Tab 1 at 4, Tab 18 at 73. On or about September 29, 1993, the appellant’s NAFI
position was converted into a General Schedule (GS) position and the appellant
was automatically enrolled in FERS. IAF, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 18 at 73. Thereafter,
on or about August 15, 1994, the appellant accepted a NAFI position
and reenrolled in the Navy’s NAFI retirement program.            IAF, Tab 1 at 4,
Tab 18 at 73. Later, on or about March 1, 1998, the appellant’s NAFI position
was converted to a GS position, and he was reenrolled in FERS. IAF, Tab 1 at 4,
Tab 18 at 73.
      On March 6, 1998, the appellant executed form NAF-CS-1 entitled
“ELECTION TO RETAIN NAFI RETIRMENT COVERAGE AS A RESULT OF
MOVE FROM A NONAPPROPRIATED FUND POSITION TO A CIVIL
SERVICE POSITION AFTER AUGUST 9, 1996.”                       IAF, Tab 18 at 31
(punctuation as in the original).     The form provided the appellant with the
irrevocable option to either (1) retain NAFI retirement coverage regardless of
future moves between NAFI and civil service positions or (2) enter the FERS
retirement plan “without receiving any service credit in FERS . . . for time spent
under the NAFI plan.” Id. The appellant elected option 2. Id. He subsequently

2
  A nonappropriated fund instrumentality is generally one to which the Government has
provided funds to initiate operations and the Government loan is repaid out of profits
earned by the activity. Thus, the activity is created by the Government, with
Government funds, for Government personnel. Military exchanges and similar entities
are the major types of NAFIs. Suarez v. Office of Personnel Management, 58 M.S.P.R.
639, 641 n.1 (1993).
                                                                               3

applied for a refund of his NAFI retirement contributions and received a lump
sum check by letter dated April 2, 1998. Id. at 28, 30.
      Effective March 31, 2019, the appellant retired and applied for an
immediate FERS retirement annuity. Id. at 4, 99-108. As part of his application,
the Navy completed a form entitled Certified Summary of Federal Service
showing the appellant’s service history, which included a written note that the
appellant’s NAFI service was not creditable for his FERS retirement annuity
because the appellant elected option 2 on his signed NAF-CS-1 form. Id. at 104.
On May 18, 2019, the appellant sent a letter to OPM requesting to make a
one-time election to combine his NAFI service and FERS service towards a single
retirement benefit under section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 186, 434-39 (codified at
5 U.S.C. § 8347) (PL 104-106) and OPM Benefits Administration Letter (BAL)
96-108, which provided guidance on PL 104-106.            IAF, Tab 5 at 36.   On
December 16, 2019, OPM issued an initial decision denying the appellant’s
request to combine his NAFI service and FERS service because he had not signed
an election form to do so before August 11, 1997, the deadline under PL 104-106.
Id. at 43-44.
      The appellant requested reconsideration of that decision and, on April 17,
2020, OPM subsequently issued another initial decision. Id. at 47, 61-62. OPM
informed the appellant that, under 5 C.F.R. part 847, subpart E, “[w]hen an
employee elects to retroactively return to . . . FERS coverage, or to have NAFI
service credited towards FERS, employee contributions and government
contributions made to the NAFI retirement plan transfer to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund.” Id. at 61. OPM noted that it had not received
any transfers of contributions from the appellant’s NAFI retirement plan that it
could use to apply to his annuity to make the NAFI service creditable, and it
denied his request to credit his NAFI service for that reason and his failure to
sign the election form by the required date. Id. at 61-62. The appellant again
                                                                                 4

requested reconsideration and, on December 18, 2020, OPM sent him a letter
informing him that, under 5 C.F.R. § 847.304, a part of the regulations
implementing PL 104-106, a NAFI agency may waive the August 11, 1997
deadline to elect NAFI service to be credited under FERS. Id. at 65-66, 77. OPM
instructed the appellant to contact his NAFI agency to inquire about whether they
would approve a waiver.     Id. at 77.   The appellant contacted the agency per
OPM’s instructions, but his former employer ultimately informed him by email
that it determined through discussions with OPM that it was not responsible for
providing a waiver and it advised the appellant that his case had been submitted
to OPM’s reconsideration branch. Id. at 79, 83.
      On July 14, 2021, OPM issued a final decision affirming the initial
decision, finding that the appellant’s NAFI service was not creditable towards his
retirement under FERS.      Id. at 88.      The final decision explained that the
appellant’s NAFI service from January 5, 1987, until September 28, 1993,
and from August 15, 1994, until February 28, 1998, did not meet the requirements
set out at 5 C.F.R. § 847.202(d) and 5 C.F.R. § 831.305. Id. at 88-89. It also
explained that the appellant was not eligible to combine his FERS and NAFI
service towards one retirement benefit under PL 104-106 because OPM’s
BAL 96-108, its guidance on implementing PL 104-106, targeted employees who
were in FERS-covered positions at that time and the appellant was then a NAFI
employee, and because the appellant’s conversion to a FERS position in 1998 was
not a qualifying move under the regulations. Id. at 89. The final decision also
noted that the appellant was ineligible because, in 1998, he elected not to remain
in the NAFI retirement program, and because he subsequently received a refund
of his NAFI retirement contributions. Id.
      The appellant filed a timely Board appeal, contending that OPM’s final
decision was incorrect for several reasons, including that the appellant’s first
conversion to a FERS position on September 29, 1993, was a qualifying move and
that current NAFI employees at that time were also potentially eligible to
                                                                                      5

combine their service under BAL 96-108. IAF, Tab 1 at 6. In an initial decision
dated January 28, 2022, the administrative judge affirmed OPM’s final decision
based on the written record because the appellant withdrew his request for a
hearing. IAF, Tab 23, Initial Decision (ID) at 1. The administrative judge found
that, under 5 C.F.R. § 847.202(f), in order for the appellant’s NAFI service to
qualify for FERS service credit, his move from a NAFI position to a FERS
position had to have occurred between January 1, 1987, and August 9, 1996. ID
at 4. The administrative judge concluded that, because it was undisputed that
appellant’s move between these positions did not occur until March 1, 1998, OPM
correctly determined that the appellant’s move was not a qualifying move. Id.
The administrative judge also concluded that, because the appellant failed to
establish entitlement to FERS service credit based on his NAFI service, it was
unnecessary to address the fact that the appellant requested and received a refund
of his NAFI retirement contributions. ID at 5.
      The appellant has filed a timely petition for review. Petition for Review
(PFR) File, Tab 1. He argues that the administrative judge incorrectly decided
several important facts, failed to apply PL 104-106 correctly, and that the initial
decision was wrong because OPM failed to submit required documents by the
established deadline and thus those documents should be inadmissible. Id. at 4-5.
OPM has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 4.

                                     ANALYSIS
      Although not raised by either party on appeal or on review, we find that we
must vacate the initial decision because the Board presently lacks jurisdiction
over this matter. See Waldrop v. U.S. Postal Service, 72 M.S.P.R. 12, 15 (1996)
(stating that “[a]s a limited-jurisdiction tribunal, the Board must satisfy itself that
it has authority to adjudicate the matter before it and may raise the matter of its
own jurisdiction sua sponte at any time); see also Rodriguez v. Department of
Homeland Security, 112 M.S.P.R. 446, ¶ 10 (2009).
                                                                                      6

       Section 1043 of PL 104-106 created an opportunity for certain FERS and
NAFI employees who had a qualifying move after December 31, 1965, and before
August 10, 1996, to retroactively elect to combine their FERS and NAFI service
towards a single retirement benefit. IAF, Tab 5 at 34; see 5 C.F.R. part 847,
subpart D (elections of coverage under the retroactive provisions). Individuals
were required to make such a retroactive election by August 11, 1997. 5 C.F.R.
§ 847.304(a). Under OPM’s regulations implementing PL 104-106, each agency
was responsible for notifying its employees of the opportunity to make the
election and for counseling employees with respect to the election.           5 C.F.R.
§ 847.105(a).    The regulations also assigned each agency the responsibility of
determining whether an employee qualifies to make an election under subparts B
(elections to continue retirement coverage after a qualifying move) and D.
5 C.F.R. § 847.105; see Regdon v. Department of the Army, 117 M.S.P.R. 348,
¶ 6 (2012). 3
       Additionally, the regulations also give individuals the right to request the
Board to review a final agency determination of their eligibility to make
an election.    5 C.F.R. § 847.107(a).    An appeal to the Board is the exclusive
remedy for review of agency decisions concerning eligibility to make the
retroactive election under 5 C.F.R. part 847, subparts B and D.               5 C.F.R.
§ 847.107(b); see Markanich v. Office of Personnel Management, 104 M.S.P.R.
323, ¶ 11 (2006). Further, when an agency determines that an employee is not
eligible to make an election under 5 C.F.R. part 847, subparts B or D, it must
issue a final decision to the employee in writing that sets forth the agency’s
findings and conclusions and contains notice of the right to request review by the
Board. 5 C.F.R. § 847.106; Markanich, 104 M.S.P.R. 323, ¶ 11.
       In this case, the appellant should have raised the issue of whether he is
eligible to retroactively elect to have his prior NAFI service treated as creditable
3
 The time limits for making an election under subparts B and D may be waived under
certain circumstances, including a lack of notice or counseling. 5 C.F.R. §§ 847.206(b),
847.302, 847.304(b).
                                                                                    7

service for purposes of his FERS annuity with his former employer instead of
OPM. Under the regulations set forth above, the appellant’s former employing
agency, the Navy, must issue a final written decision before he can request review
by the Board. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 847.106, .107(a); Markanich, 104 M.S.P.R. 323,
¶¶ 6, 12 (holding that the administrative judge correctly concluded that the Board
lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the appellant was entitled to make a
retroactive election under section 1043(c) of PL 104-106 because the appellant’s
former employer had not issued a final written decision on the matter); see also
Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has
been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation).
      Here, the Navy has not issued a final written decision on whether the
appellant is eligible to make a retroactive election.         Although the agency
completed the appellant’s Certified Summary of Federal Service form with a note
that his NAFI service was not creditable as a part of his application for a FERS
retirement annuity, that form does not constitute a final written decision under the
regulation noted above. IAF, Tab 18 at 104; see 5 C.F.R. § 847.106(b). Further,
the agency’s brief email to the appellant stating that it “was not responsible for
providing a waiver with regard to [his] PL 104-106 request” does not constitute a
final written decision either, as it does not detail any agency findings or
conclusions as to the appellant’s eligibility to combine his FERS and NAFI
service toward one retirement benefit. 4       IAF, Tab 5 at 83; see 5 C.F.R.
4
  Although the record contains separate email exchanges between the agency and OPM
representatives about the waiver request wherein the agency’s representative analyzes
the appellant’s eligibility to combine his FERS and NAFI service toward one retirement
benefit, those findings and conclusions were not set forth in a communication to the
appellant. IAF, Tab 18 at 32-36. Further, those communications do not analyze the
appellant’s repeated argument that BAL 96-108 stated that certain current NAFI
employees, not just FERS employees, could also elect to combine their FERS and NAFI
service toward one retirement benefit or his argument that his first conversion to a
FERS position on September 29, 1993 was a qualifying move — and whether he should
have been given an election opportunity then, and the implications if he was not. IAF,
Tab 1 at 6, Tab 5 at 33-36.
                                                                                       8

§ 847.106(b); cf. Regdon, 117 M.S.P.R. 348, ¶ 6 (finding that an email constituted
a final agency decision under 5 C.F.R. part 847 when the agency clearly denied
the appellant the opportunity to elect to transfer his FERS retirement
contributions to his NAFI retirement plan and gave him one choice to combine
retirement plans that he had to elect immediately). Accordingly, when the agency
issues a final written decision setting forth its findings and conclusions
containing a notice of his appeal rights, then the appellant may appeal that
decision to the Board. See 5 C.F.R. § 847.107(a); Markanich, 104 M.S.P.R. 323,
¶ 12. 5

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
          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

5
  An agency final decision on the appellant’s eligibility to combine his service under
PL 104-106 seems especially prudent in this case as the appellant has thus far failed to
receive a clear and consistent answer on his eligibility that addresses all his arguments
and concerns, the most pertinent of which are mentioned above.
6
  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.
                                                                                         9

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
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
                                                                                10

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:
                         Office of Federal Operations
                  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                               P.O. Box 77960
                          Washington, D.C. 20013
                                                                                     11

      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. 7   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
7
   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.
                                                                              12

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