Court Opinion

ID: 9373617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:13.212814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.500746
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KENNETH JUNIUS,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DA-0845-17-0031-I-1

                  v.

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

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Kenneth Junius, New Orleans, Louisiana, pro se.

           Jane Bancroft, 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 his Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) overpayment
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only
     in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a reconsideration
     decision on September 27, 2016, affirming its calculation of a $29,906
     overpayment in FERS annuity benefits and denying the appellant’s request for a
     waiver. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 8-11. Based on a finding of financial
     hardship, OPM adjusted the repayment schedule and indicated that it would
     collect the overpayment in 664 monthly installments of $45, plus a final
     installment of $26, beginning with the appellant’s annuity payment check dated
     January 1, 2017. Id. at 11.
¶3         The appellant filed an appeal with the Board on October 17, 2016,
     contesting OPM’s reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 1. OPM filed a motion to
     dismiss the appeal on November 15, 2016, stating that it had “rescinded the
     decision under appeal, [and] there no longer remains any matter over which the
     Board retains jurisdiction.” IAF, Tab 6 at 4. OPM also stated that it would cease
     all collection attempts and issue a new decision after further review of the amount
     of the overpayment. Id. The administrative judge granted OPM’s motion and
                                                                                        3

     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on his finding that OPM had
     completely rescinded the final decision. IAF, Tab 9, Initial Decision (ID) at 2.
¶4          The appellant has filed a petition for review, arguing the merits of his
     appeal. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has responded to his
     petition. PFR File, Tab 6.

                        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5          On review, the appellant does not address the administrative judge’s finding
     that the Board has no jurisdiction over this appeal. Instead, he submits medical
     documentation and asserts that he did not know that he needed to file this
     evidence on appeal below.       PFR File, Tab 1 at 3, Tab 3.      He also submits
     evidence and argument that he is in debt because of his election to take disability
     retirement. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, 6-9. He contends that he did not understand
     how the disability retirement system works or that the money he received was not
     his.   Id. at 4.   He further states that he only applied for disability retirement
     because the Postal Service threatened him with removal based on his absences
     from an on-the-job injury. Id. at 3-4. For the reasons discussed below, we find
     that the administrative judge properly dismissed this appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction.
¶6          The Board has jurisdiction over OPM determinations affecting an
     appellant’s rights or interests under FERS after OPM has issued a fina l or
     reconsideration decision.    5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(1); Okello v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 120 M.S.P.R. 498, ¶¶ 13-14 (2014); 5 C.F.R. § 841.308. If OPM
     completely rescinds the reconsideration decision, however, the rescission divests
     the Board of jurisdiction over the appeal in which the reconsideration decision is
     at issue, and the appeal must be dismissed.        Martin v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 119 M.S.P.R. 188, ¶ 8 (2013).         Here, OPM asserted that it had
     completely rescinded the final decision and intended to issue a new decision
     regarding the alleged overpayment.      IAF, Tab 6 at 4.    The appellant did not
                                                                                           4

     dispute these contentions below or on review, despite being expli citly informed
     by OPM’s motion and the initial decision that such rescission divests the Board of
     jurisdiction. ID at 3; IAF, Tab 6 at 4; see Boughton v. Department of Agriculture,
     94 M.S.P.R. 347, ¶¶ 5‑6 (2003) (finding it sufficient that an agency’s motion to
     dismiss or an initial decision put the appellant on notice of the Board’s
     jurisdictional requirements, providing him with an opportunity to meet his burden
     on review).    Rather, the appellant argues the merits of his appeal, which is
     immaterial to the jurisdictional issue before the Board on review.           PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 3-4; see Sapla v. Department of the Navy, 118 M.S.P.R. 551, ¶ 7 (2012)
     (finding that an appellant’s arguments concerning defamation and the basis for
     the agency’s withdrawal of a job offer were not relevant to issue of the Board’s
     jurisdiction over the agency’s withdrawal of the job offer, the issue currently
     before the Board). We therefore affirm the administrative judge’s decision to
     dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
¶7         As noted above, OPM indicated that it intends to issue a new decision
     concerning the alleged overpayment. IAF, Tab 6 at 4.             The dismissal of this
     appeal does not preclude the appellant from filing another appeal if he disagrees
     with OPM’s new reconsideration decision.           Franklin v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 62 M.S.P.R. 168, 169-70 (1994). The appellant must file any future
     appeal within the limits set forth in the Board’s regulations. Id.; see 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.22.    Because the appellant’s arguments on review present no basis to
     disturb the initial decision, we deny his petition for review.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
           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

     2
       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

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 choice s 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:
                              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 particu lar
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.
                                                                                    6

      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. ____ , 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 the ir 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
                                                                                 7

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, t hen 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
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. 3 The court of appeals must receive your

3
  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
                                                                                      8

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.

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

      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.