Court Opinion

ID: 9373532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:41.323043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.019650
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CHARLES E. WILSON,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DA-0845-16-0478-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: July 29, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Charles E. Wilson, Corpus Christi, Texas, pro se.

           Karla W. Yeakle, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed the appeal as settled. For the reasons set forth below, the appellant’s

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown
     for the delay. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                         BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant filed an appeal challenging an Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM) reconsideration decision finding that he was overpaid
     $10,764.00 in annuity benefits under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System
     (FERS).   Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 5, 8-10.     While the appeal was
     pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.     IAF, Tab 22.    The
     appellant agreed to withdraw his appeal in exchange for a reduction in the
     repayment schedule resulting in 215 monthly installments of $50.00, with one
     final monthly installment of $14.00. Id. After finding the agreement lawful on
     its face and that the parties understood its terms and entered into it freely, the
     administrative judge entered the agreement into the record for enforcement
     purposes and dismissed the appeal as settled. IAF, Tab 23, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 2. She informed the parties that the initial decision would become final unless
     either party filed a petition for review by January 5, 2017. Id. The appellant,
     however, did not file his petition for review until January 9, 2017. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.

                        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶3        A petition for review generally must be filed within 35 days after the date
     of issuance of an initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board will waive
     this time limit only upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing.
     5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.12, 1201.114(f). To establish good cause for the untimely filing
     of an appeal, a party must show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary
     prudence under the particular circumstances of the case. Alonzo v. Department of
     the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). To determine whether an appellant
     has shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of the delay, the
                                                                                       3

     reasonableness of his excuse and his showing of due diligence, whether he is
     proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence of the existence of
     circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to comply with the time
     limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarly shows a causal
     relationship to his inability to timely file his petition. Moorman v. Department of
     the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
     (Table).
¶4        Here, when the appellant electronically filed his petition on January 9,
     2017, the Board’s e-Appeal Online form notified him that his petition was
     untimely filed and advised him of what was necessary to show good cause for the
     untimely filing. PFR File, Tab 1. However, the appellant did not address the
     untimeliness of his petition in the form.     Rather, he addressed the merits of
     OPM’s overpayment determination, and he asserted that he only entered into the
     settlement agreement for “the sake of expediency.” Id. at 3.
¶5        Thereafter, the Office of the Clerk of the Board notified the appellant tha t
     his petition was untimely filed and advised him that the Board may issue an order
     dismissing his untimely petition if he did not submit, by January 24, 2017, an
     affidavit or a statement, signed under penalty of perjury, showing either that his
     petition for review was timely filed or that good cause existed for the delay. PFR
     File, Tab 2 at 1-2. Along with the acknowledgment letter, it enclosed a “Motion
     to Accept Filing as Timely or to Waive Time Limit” form for assistance. Id.
     at 7-8. The appellant did not file a timely response. However, on January 31,
     2017, he submitted a copy of a letter he sent to his congressman in an apparent
     reply to the agency’s response to his petition. PFR File, Tab 5. In this letter, the
     appellant challenges the merits of the FERS annuity overpayment and also states,
     “For OPM and MSPB any delays during the Christmas and New Years time [sic]
     were because my elder sister had to be relocated to a nursin g home in Texas from
     Pensacola FL, due to apparent dementia although that diagnosis has not
                                                                                             4

     necessarily been made yet.” Id. at 5. While the appellant appears to be asserting
     that his sister’s relocation is the reason for his filing delay with the Board, he did
     not submit any evidence to support this assertion, and he did not submit the
     Board’s “Motion to Accept Filing as Timely or to Waive Time Limit” form.
¶6         Although the appellant is acting pro se, that fact alone cannot overcome his
     filing delay and the absence of evidence showing due diligence. See Schuringa v.
     Department of the Treasury, 106 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶¶ 4 n.*, 9, 14 (2007) (declining to
     excuse a pro se appellant’s 4–day delay in filing her appeal). Further, the record
     reveals that the appellant: (1) was notified of the time limit for filing a petition
     for review; (2) was twice provided with an opportunity to explain his untimely
     filing and advised of what he had to submit to support a motion to accept his
     filing as timely or to waive the time limit; and (3) subsequently asserted an
     explanation for the untimely filing in a letter to his congressman but did not
     explain how his sister’s relocation prevented him from meeting the filing deadline
     or from requesting an extension of time to do so. See Pine v. Department of the
     Army, 63 M.S.P.R. 381, 383 (1994) (finding that a claim that the appellant was
     caring for a critically ill mother, which did not specifically account for the period
     of untimeliness, did not constitute good cause for the waiver of the filing
     deadline).   Thus, we find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate due
     diligence or ordinary prudence that would excuse his late filing and that,
     therefore, no good cause exists for the filing delay.
¶7         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
     the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
     of the petition for review. 2 The initial decision remains the final decision of the

     2
       Nevertheless, we have reviewed the appellant’s claim on review that he only entered
     into the settlement agreement with OPM for the “sake of expediency.” PFR File, Tab 1
     at 3. The record reflects that the appellant freely entered into the settlement agreement,
     and we discern no basis upon which to disturb the initial decision dismissing the appeal
     as settled. See Asberry v. U.S. Postal Service, 692 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1982)
                                                                                       5

Board regarding the dismissal of the appellant’s FERS annuity overpayment
appeal as settled. 3

                         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 n ot 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

(explaining that the party challenging the validity of the settlement agreement bears a
“heavy burden”); see also Hinton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 119 M.S.P.R. 129,
¶ 4 (2013) (holding that an appellant’s mere postsettlement remorse or change of heart
cannot serve as a basis for setting aside a valid settlement agreement ).
3
  OPM has advised the Board that it may seek recovery of any debt remaining upon an
appellant’s death from the appellant’s estate or other responsible party. A par ty
responsible for any debt remaining upon the appellant’s death may include an heir
(spouse, child or other) who is deriving a benefit from the appellant’s Federal benefits,
an heir or other person acting as the representative of the estate if, for exampl e, the
representative fails to pay the United States before paying the claims of other creditors
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b), or transferees or distributers of the appellant’s
estate. Pierotti v. Office of Personnel Management, 124 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 13 (2016).
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.
                                                                                          6

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 websi te 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 ac tion
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
                                                                                  7

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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                      8

      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).
      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:

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.
                                                                                9

                             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.