Court Opinion

ID: 9373487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:22.493269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.502346
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RICHARD L. MILLER,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DE-0831-14-0340-M-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: August 15, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Richard L. Miller, Colorado Springs, Colorado, pro se.

           Jane Bancroft, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     remanded his retirement appeal to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
     for recalculation of his Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuity,
     consistent with the order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). 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 er roneous
     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). For the reasons discussed below, we DENY the appellant’s petition
     for review and REMAND the case to OPM for further adjudication in accordance
     with this Remand Order.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        As the Board noted previously, the appellant has a complicated history of
     civilian and military service that began in 1970 and concluded in 2012. Miller v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 124 M.S.P.R. 62, ¶ 2 (2016), aff’d in part,
     rev’d in part, and remanded, 903 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The appellant
     retired from Federal service in 2012. Miller v. Office of Personnel Management,
     MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-0340-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 5.
     In a March 28, 2014 reconsideration decision, OPM granted the appellant’s
     application for immediate CSRS retirement, but excluded several periods from
     his creditable civilian service computation. Id. at 5-7.
¶3        The appellant filed an appeal of OPM’s March 28, 2014 reconsideration
     decision. IAF, Tab 1. The administrative judge issued an initial decision finding
     that the appellant was entitled to civilian service credit for part of the disallowed
     period and potentially entitled to civilian service credit for the remainder of that
     period; therefore, he remanded the case to OPM for consideration of the
                                                                                      3

     outstanding issue regarding the appellant’s creditable service and recalculation
     of the appellant’s annuity. IAF, Tab 22, Initial Decision (ID) at 7-9. OPM filed
     a petition for review of the initial decision.    Miller v. Office of Personnel
     Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-0340-I-1, Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1.    In a precedential opinion, the Board reversed the initial
     decision and affirmed OPM’s reconsideration decision. Miller, 124 M.S.P.R. 62,
     ¶¶ 1, 20.
¶4        The appellant appealed the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit. Miller,
     903 F.3d at 1276-77.      The Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision,
     affirming the Board’s decision in part, reversing in part, and remanding for
     further adjudication consistent with its orders therein. Id. at 1277, 1286. The
     court concluded that, for the periods of June 21 to June 30, 1982 (period one) ,
     and August 27 to October 25, 1990 (period two), the appellant had performed
     concurrent military and civilian service and that he was entitled to CSRS credit
     for his civilian service, even if he also received credit towards his military
     retirement for his military service performed during those per iods.           Id.
     at 1282-85. The court further held that, for the final period at issue, August 22,
     1994, to December 22, 1995 (period three), the appellant had performed military
     service with no concurrent civilian service and he was barred, under 5 U.S.C.
     § 8332(c)(2), from receiving civilian service credit for that military service
     because he had not made a deposit or waived his military retirement pay for this
     period. Miller, 903 F.3d at 1285-86. The Federal Circuit ordered the Board to
     remand the appeal to OPM for recalculation of the appellant’s CSRS retirement
     annuity consistent with those findings. Id. at 1286.
¶5        After the matter was remanded to the Denver Field Office, the
     administrative judge issued a close of record order, indicating his intent to
     remand the matter to OPM, consistent with the Federal Circuit’s order, and
     allowing the parties an opportunity to object to his order.   Miller v. Office of
     Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-0340-M-1, Appeal File
                                                                                       4

     (M-1 AF), Tab 3. Both parties submitted responses. M-1 AF, Tabs 6, 8. In his
     close of record submission, the appellant agreed that OPM should be ordered to
     recalculate his annuity based on his creditable civilian services for periods one
     and two. M-1 AF, Tab 6 at 5-6. He also did not dispute that he was not entitled
     to have his military service from period three credited towards his CSRS service
     computation. Id. However, he argued that he was entitled to various refunds of
     “overpayments” OPM collected from him relating to its erroneous disallowance
     of civilian service credit for periods one and two and to a refund of his
     “contributions,” such as his CSRS retirement, healthcare, and military deposit
     payments, that he paid to and/or were collected by his former employing agency
     during period three. Id. at 7-9. After considering the parties submissions, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision, remanding the matter to OPM for
     recalculation of the appellant’s CSRS retirement annuity. M-1 AF, Tab 9, Initial
     Decision (M-1 ID) at 1-3.
¶6        The appellant has filed a petition for review. Miller v. Office of Personnel
     Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-0340-M-1, Petition for Review
     File (M-1 PFR File), Tab 1. OPM has filed a pro forma response, to which the
     appellant has replied. M-1 PFR File, Tabs 5-6.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The Board will consider the appellant’s new evidence submitted on review.
¶7        On review, the appellant has filed a letter from OPM dated Janu ary 3, 2019,
     in which OPM notified the appellant that, based on his additional service
     performed for periods one and two, his net CSRS monthly annuity increased to
     $2,016. 2 M-1 PFR File, Tab 1 at 13. He also submits his response to OPM’s

     2
       The letter from OPM is dated January 3, 2018. M-1 PFR File, Tab 1 at 13. However,
     OPM appears to have made a typographical error regarding the date because the record
     reflects that it was issued on January 3, 2019. The letter references the Federal
     Circuit’s decision regarding this matter, Miller, 903 F.3d 1274, which was issued on
     September 10, 2018. M-1 PFR File, Tab 1 at 13. The appellant also notes in his
                                                                                             5

      letter, in which he continues to claim entitlement to a refund of contributions in
      connection with his civilian employment from period three. Id. at 14-17.
¶8          Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board generally will not consider evidence
      submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it
      was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence.
      Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). The appellant has
      made this showing. OPM did not issue the January 3, 2019 letter until after the
      initial decision’s issuance.     M-1 PFR File, Tab 1 at 13; M-1 ID at 1.             The
      appellant responded promptly to OPM’s letter in writing and acted with due
      diligence in submitting this documentation to the Board. M -1 PFR File, Tab 1
      at 3-4, 14-17, Tab 2 at 1 n.*. Therefore, we consider this evidence on review.

      The Board lacks jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s challenges to OPM’s
      January 3, 2019 letter.
¶9          On review, the appellant asserts that OPM has recalculated his annuity to
      account for his creditable civilian service for periods one and two and
      “refund[ed] . . . the alleged overpayment,” as ordered by the Federal Circuit.
      M-1 PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. However, he argues that OPM failed to refund his
      CSRS contributions, insurance payments, and military deposit collected by his
      former employer during period three. 3 Id. at 7-11.
¶10         Generally, the Board has jurisdiction over OPM determinations affecting an
      appellant’s rights and interests under CSRS only after OPM has issued a final
      decision in the matter. Reid v. Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R.
      83, ¶ 6 (2013); see 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 831.110. However, the
      absence of a reconsideration decision does not preclude Board review of a
      retirement decision when OPM fails to advise the appellant of his right to requ est

      response to OPM that the letter was issued on January 3, 2019. Id. at 14. We therefore
      find that OPM issued the letter on January 3, 2019.
      3
       The Federal Circuit found that the appellant did not make a military deposit relating to
      his military service performed in period three. Miller, 903 F.3d at 1285-86.
                                                                                      6

      a reconsideration decision and does not intend to issue any further decision on
      the appellant’s application.   Reid, 120 M.S.P.R. 83, ¶ 6. In such a case, the
      Board will consider the totality of the circumstances to find that OPM’s failure
      to act constitutes an appealable administrative action affecting the appellant’s
      rights under Federal retirement laws. Okello v. Office of Personnel Management,
      120 M.S.P.R. 498, ¶ 15 (2014).
¶11       OPM’s January 3, 2019 letter did not address the appellant’s refund claims
      concerning period three, indicate that it was a final decision by OPM on the
      matter, or apprise the appellant of his right to request reconsideration. M -1 PFR
      File, Tab 1 at 13. The appellant contended that he has undergone nearly 6 years
      of litigation to obtain his requested relief from OPM. M-1 AF, Tab 6 at 6-7; see
      Okello, 120 M.S.P.R. 498, ¶¶ 15-16 (finding that OPM’s failure to act for 6 years
      constituted an appealable administrative action because the appellant diligently
      sought a final decision during that time period).     However, as the appellant
      recognized, the primary issue before OPM was             his creditable service
      computation, which the Federal Circuit resolved in its 2018 decision. M-1 AF,
      Tab 6 at 9; see Miller, 903 F.3d at 1274, 1276-77, 1286.         The appellant’s
      credible service computation is distinct from the issue of whether he is entitled
      to a refund of his CSRS contributions and military deposit.      See Forsythe v.
      Office of Personnel Management, 85 M.S.P.R. 593, ¶ 10 (2000) (finding that the
      question of whether the appellant’s CSRS contributions should be retained in the
      retirement fund or refunded to him was a distinct issue from his entitlement to
      civilian service credit for his concurrent military and civilian servic e).   The
      appellant has not presented information indicating that, since the resolution of
      the creditable service computation issue and OPM had an opportunity to squarely
      address the appellant’s refund claims, OPM has improperly refused or delayed
      issuing a reconsideration decision addressing his refund request. Under these
      circumstances, it is more appropriate to allow OPM the opportunity to express its
      opinion on these issues in the first instance.      See Hasanadka v. Office of
                                                                                         7

      Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R. 636, ¶¶ 20-22 (2011) (finding no undue
      delay by OPM in not issuing a reconsideration decision on a matter raised by the
      appellant that was distinct from the issue the Board directed OPM to address on
      remand).    We therefore find that OPM’s failure to issue a reconsideration
      decision does not constitute an appealable administrative action and that the
      Board lacks jurisdiction over the appellant’s refund claims.

                                           ORDER
¶12        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to OPM in accordance
      with the Federal Circuit’s September 10, 2018 order for issuance of a new final
      decision addressing the recalculation of the appellant’s CSRS retirement annuity
      and for issuance of a final decision addressing the appellant’s refund request.
      OPM shall advise the appellant in any new final decision addressing the above
      issues of his right to file an appeal with the Board’s Denver Field Office if he
      disagrees with that decision.        See Litzenberger v. Office of Personnel
      Management, 88 M.S.P.R. 419, 424 (2001).
¶13        We also ORDER OPM to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it
      believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has taken
      to carry out the Board’s Order.       We ORDER the appellant to provide all
      necessary information OPM requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. The
      appellant, if not notified, should ask OPM about its progress. See 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.181(b).
¶14        No later than 30 days after OPM tells the appellant it has fully carried out
      the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the
      office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that
      OPM did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition should contain
      specific reasons why the appellant believes OPM has not fully carried out the
                                                                            8

Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications
with OPM. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

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