Court Opinion

ID: 9899821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 19:00:25.682054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:51.682462
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CHRISTINE A. RYBA,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       PH-3443-18-0377-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                     DATE: November 16, 2023
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Christine A. Ryba , Moorestown, New Jersey, pro se.

           Jessica N. Cone , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction her appeal challenging the agency’s denial of
     her request for retirement under the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority
     (VERA). For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition
     for review, VACATE the finding of the initial decision that the Board lacks

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     jurisdiction over this appeal, and REMAND the case to the Northeastern Regional
     Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

                                  BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant was employed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a
     GS-13 Project Manager in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 1 at 1.    In a memorandum dated April 12, 2018, the Deputy District
     Commander, Philadelphia District, inquired amongst employees within the district
     as to their interest and availability for VERA and/or Voluntary Separation
     Incentive Pay (VSIP). Id. at 7-9. The Deputy District Commander stated that
     participation in the VERA/VSIP program was not an employee entitlement and an
     expression of interest in the program did not guarantee acceptance. Id. at 8. He
     further stated that he would determine the positions applicable to the allocations
     and the agency’s final determination would be “based on mission and
     organizational needs.” Id. The appellant asserted that she submitted a VERA
     application. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. On or around May 3, 2018, she claims that an
     individual identified as a senior civilian informed her that her VERA application
     had been denied based on purported “workload concerns.” IAF, Tab 1 at 5.
¶3        The appellant appealed the agency’s decision to the Board and did not
     request a hearing. Id. at 2, 5. The administrative judge advised the appellant that
     the Board may not have jurisdiction over the appeal and of certain limited
     exceptions to the general rule that the Board may not address matters over which
     it otherwise lacks jurisdiction.   IAF, Tab 2 at 2-3.   The administrative judge
     ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument showing that her appeal is
     within the Board’s jurisdiction, id., to which the appellant did not respond. The
     agency moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 4 at 4.
     Based on the written record, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal,
     finding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from voluntary agency
     programs, such as the VERA, and the appellant had identified no section under
                                                                                         3

     the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or Federal Employees Retirement
     System (FERS) that entitles her to participate in the VERA program. IAF, Tab 5,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 3.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review. PFR File, Tab 1. The agency
     has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 3.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The appellant argues that a voluntary early retirement denial may be
     appealable to the Board as an administrative action or order affecting her rights or
     interests under the CSRS or FERS. 2 Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2;
     see 5 U.S.C. §§ 8347(d)(1), 8461(e)(1). We agree. See Adams v. Department of
     Defense, 688 F.3d 1330, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that the appeal of an
     adverse VERA ruling is within the jurisdiction of the Board); Dawson v.
     Department of Agriculture, 121 M.S.P.R. 495, ¶ 16 (2014) (same).
¶6         Ordinarily, such an appeal is from a decision from the Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM) or an agency that received delegated authority from OPM. 3
     Dawson, 121 M.S.P.R. 495, ¶¶ 16-17. Here, however, it appears that the agency
     could approve or deny early retirement applications pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
     § 9902(f), under which the Secretary of Defense has statutory authority to
     establish a VERA to be administered according to regulations established by the
     Secretary.    See Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) No. 1400.25,
     Vol. 1702, Encl. 3, ¶ 4 (June 13, 2008), https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/
     Documents/DD/issuances/140025/1400.25-V1702.pdf .

     2
       To the extent that the appellant intended to seek review of an Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM) regulation, she may file a separate appeal in accordance with the
     requirements set forth at 5 C.F.R. part 1203.
     3
        Generally, an agency must request a VERA from OPM and provide specific
     information in support of its request. 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.114, 842.213. Once OPM
     approves a VERA, an employee who falls within the scope of the VERA’s coverage and
     who meets the age, service, and other requirements prescribed by statute and OPM
     regulation is entitled to an immediate annuity. 5 U.S.C. §§ 8336(d), 8414(b); 5 C.F.R.
     §§ 831.114(k), 842.213(k).
                                                                                       4

¶7         Under 5 U.S.C. § 9902(f)(4), “[a]n employee who is at least 50 years of age
      and has completed 20 years of service, or has at least 25 years of service,
      may . . . apply and be retired from the Department of Defense and receive
      benefits in accordance with chapter 83 or 84 . . . . ” DoDI No. 1400.25 provides
      that a Department of Defense installation using VERA has discretion in
      “determin[ing] and publiciz[ing] the maximum number of locally authorized
      VERA approvals and the anticipated multiple windows of opportunity required.”
¶8         The appellant asserts that there was no basis for the agency’s denial of her
      request for retirement under the VERA, given her purported eligibility, her
      supervisor’s support, and the nonexistent competition. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-8.
      She further asserts that the agency’s denial was not in accord with the procedural
      requirements set forth in DoDI No. 1400.25. Id. at 3-5. Such a denial would
      significantly    affect   her   rights   or    interests   under    5   U.S.C.
      §§ 8347(d)(1), 8461(e)(1), and thus may be an appealable “administrative action”
      within the Board’s jurisdiction.    The record does not, however, include any
      written application by the appellant or written denial by the agency.
¶9         Thus, the record is not sufficiently developed for the Board to determine
      whether the appellant has established jurisdiction over this appeal. Moreover, the
      appellant did not receive explicit information on what is required to establish an
      appealable jurisdictional issue in this type of case. See Burgess v. Merit Systems
      Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
¶10        On remand, the administrative judge shall notify the appellant of how to
      establish Board jurisdiction over an appeal seeking retirement benefits under the
      VERA and afford the parties an opportunity to submit evidence and argument on
      the issue.    See Adams, 688 F.3d at 1335; Dawson, 121 M.S.P.R. 495, ¶ 16.
      Should the appellant establish that her appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction,
      the administrative judge shall adjudicate the merits of the appellant’s appeal, as
      well as her harmful error and prohibited personnel practice claims. See PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 5.
                                                                                         5

¶11        We note that the appellant failed to respond to the administrative judge’s
      jurisdictional order in the proceedings below.         PFR File, Tab 1 at 1.    The
      appellant attributes her failure to respond to the fact that she did not receive any
      case-related filings, with the exception of the initial decision, which was mailed
      to her home address on August 22, 2018.          Id.   She observes that, when she
      contacted the Board’s regional office on August 23, 2018, an unidentified
      employee informed her that all case-related filings had been sent to the email
      address that she provided in her initial appeal. Id. at 1-2.
¶12        A review of the record shows that the appellant may not have been alerted
      to case-related filings because it appears she misspelled her email address in her
      initial appeal. IAF, Tab 1 at 1 (showing an email domain of “usace.amy.mil”
      rather than “usace.army.mil”). Although the appellant may have been responsible
      for this error, we nevertheless review the arguments she raises on review because
      they implicate the Board’s jurisdiction, an issue that is always before the Board.
      See Hamilton v. U.S. Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 404, ¶ 19 n.12 (2016).

                                            ORDER
¶13        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Northeastern
      Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

      FOR THE BOARD:                         ______________________________
                                             Jennifer Everling
                                             Acting Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.