Court Opinion

ID: 9939767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 18:01:39.918774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:54.471981
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ANNIE LEE JONES,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        DC-0842-19-0343-I-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: February 9, 2024
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Annie Lee Jones , Washington, D.C., pro se.

      Sherri McCall , 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 final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
denying her application for a deferred annuity under the Federal Employees’
Retirement System (FERS).       On petition for review, the appellant argues the
administrative judge (1) erred in denying her request for an extension of time to
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

supplement the record; (2) miscalculated the length of her employment with the
Library of Congress and improperly discounted certain Federal and District of
Columbia service; and (3) erred in finding that she received a refund of the
majority of her retirement contributions. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1
at 2-4.   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 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). 2
       The appellant appears to allege on review that the administrative judge
erred in denying her motion for an extension of time to supplement the record.
PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. We find no abuse of discretion in the administrative judge’s
ruling in the initial decision denying the appellant’s motion for additional time.
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 17, Initial Decision (ID) at 5.                 During the
2
  Although the scope of OPM’s final decision pertained to the appellant’s entitlement to
a deferred annuity under FERS, the initial decision cites statutory provisions pertaining
to annuities under the Civil Service Retirement System. Initial Appeal File, Tab 12
at 29-31, Tab 17, Initial Decision at 3, 5. However, because the relevant statutory
provisions under either system are nearly identical, compare, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 8338(a),
with 5 U.S.C. § 8413(a), these misstatements are harmless to the outcome of this appeal,
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).
                                                                                  3

telephonic hearing, the appellant indicated that she had additional documentary
evidence, i.e., W-2 forms, which, she alleged, substantiated that OPM had
miscalculated the length of her employment with the Library of Congress. IAF,
Tab 14, Hearing Recording at 58:24 to 58:50 (testimony of the appellant).
Following the hearing, the administrative judge provided the appellant an
opportunity to supplement the record with this evidence. IAF, Tab 15 at 1. In so
doing, he explained that the “submissions must be received . . . on or before
July 25, 2019.” Id. (Emphasis added). On July 24, 2019, the appellant mailed a
motion via U.S. mail requesting an extension of time, until August 1, 2019, to
provide the documents.     IAF, Tab 16 at 1-3.     However, the appellant never
supplemented the record before the administrative judge.         She also has not
submitted any W-2 forms on review.
      We agree with the administrative judge that the appellant failed to meet
both the deadline imposed by the administrative judge and her own requested
deadline of August 1, 2019. ID at 5. Moreover, the appellant’s motion was also
procedurally deficient insofar as she failed to state whether OPM objected to her
request. IAF, Tab 16 at 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55(a). Thus, we find any error in
the administrative judge’s failure to rule on the appellant’s motion prior to
issuing the initial decision is harmless. See Johnson v. Department of Justice,
104 M.S.P.R. 624, ¶ 30 (2007) (determining that an administrative judge’s failure
to rule on a motion to compel was harmless because the appellant’s motion did
not comply with the Board’s regulatory requirements); White v. U.S. Postal
Service, 64 M.S.P.R. 261, 267-68 (1994) (declining to find an administrative
judge’s failure to rule on an agency’s motion for an extension was harmful
because the appellant failed to show any adverse effect on her substantive rights).
                                                                                          4

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