Court Opinion

ID: 9409998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 06:00:23.772938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.659650
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CHRISTOPHER STUART,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         PH-0841-16-0442-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: July 19, 2023
       SECURITY,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Christopher Stuart, Charles Town, West Virginia, pro se.

           Joanne M. Halley, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the agency’s decision finding that he is ineligible for enhanced Customs
     Border Protection Officer (CBPO) retirement benefits.           Generally, we grant
     petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 jud ge’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 arg ument 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).

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant is a GS-0895-15 Supervisory CBPO (Program Manager) with
     the agency’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).         Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 5 at 21.    From January 30, 2000, to July 24, 2004, the appellant
     worked as a Customs Inspector with the U.S. Customs Service, a position in the
     GS-1890 job series. IAF, Tab 12 at 44-46. On July 25, 2004, he was reassigned
     to a CBPO position with CBP, and he has held several CBPO and Supervisory
     CBPO positions since then. Id. at 12-44.
¶3        By letter dated October 26, 2015, a Supervisory Human Resources
     Specialist (HRS) with CBP’s Minnesota Hiring Center notified the appellant that
     his personnel records had been incorrectly coded since April 1, 2007, to indicate
     he had law enforcement officer (LEO) retirement coverage or enhanced CBPO
     retirement coverage when, in fact, he was covered under the Federal Employees’
     Retirement System. IAF, Tab 5 at 37-38. The HRS informed the appellant that
     the Hiring Center had adjusted his records to correct the error effective July 12,
                                                                                               3

     2015.     Id.   The appellant filed an administrative grievance with the agency,
     seeking enhanced CBPO retirement benefits. Id. at 25-36. The agency issued a
     decision denying the appellant’s request. Id. at 13-20.
¶4           The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging the agency’s decision. IAF,
     Tab 1.     The administrative judge issued an initial decision that affirmed the
     agency’s decision, finding that the appellant failed to show that he is entitled to
     enhanced CBPO retirement benefits. IAF, Tab 21, Initial Decision (ID) at 6. 2
     The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision and the agency
     has filed a response in opposition to the petition. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tabs 1, 3. 3

     2
       On the first page of the initial decision, the administrative judge mistakenly states that
     the appellant is seeking law enforcement retirement service credit, rather than enhanced
     CBPO retirement benefits, and that she is affirming the agency’s decision to deny the
     appellant such credit. ID at 1. These errors provide no basis to reverse the initial
     decision, however, as the rest of the decision shows that the administrative judge
     properly considered the appellant’s eligibility for enhanced CBPO retirement benefits
     and affirmed the agency’s decision finding the appellant ineligible for those benefits.
     ID at 2-6; see Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984)
     (holding that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights
     provides no basis for reversing an initial decision).
     3
       With his petition for review, the appellant submits two Standard Form (SF) 50s dated
     June 17, 2012. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-10. These documents are already part of the record
     below and thus are not new. Compare id., with IAF, Tab 12 at 18, 20. See Meier v.
     Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980) (stating that evidence that is
     already part of the record is not new). Therefore, the Board need not consider these
     documents. Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980).
     On review, the appellant also asks the Board to consider the two personnel actions that
     were documented in these SF-50s, but were not included in the list of his positions set
     forth in the initial decision:      his appointment to a GS -12 Supervisory CBPO
     (Enforcement) position and his promotion to a GS-13 Supervisory CBPO (CDI). PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 6-7; ID at 2-3. We have considered these personnel actions and find that
     they provide no basis for disturbing the initial decision.
                                                                                         4

                                         ANALYSIS
¶5        Federal civil service retirement laws provide enhanced retirement coverage
     to persons who serve in physically rigorous positions, such as LEOs and
     firefighters. Section 535 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (CAA),
     Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. E, title V, § 535(b)(1)(C), 121 Stat. 1844, 2076 (2007)
     (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 8401(36)) extends these benefits to CBPOs.            Because
     enhanced benefits are more costly and may result in the untimely retirement of
     valuable employees, the eligibility rules governing coverage for the benefits are
     strictly construed. See Kroll v. Department of Homeland Security, 121 M.S.P.R.
     526, ¶ 6 (2014). An employee seeking enhanced retirement benefits bears the
     burden of proving his entitlement thereto by preponderant evidence. Id. (citing
     Olszak v. Department of Homeland Security, 117 M.S.P.R. 75, ¶ 5 (2011), aff’d
     per curiam, 475 F. App’x 757 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
¶6        An employee’s service in both “primary” and “secondary” positions may
     count toward his eligibility for enhanced CBPO retirement coverage. 5 C.F.R.
     §§ 842.1002, 842.1003. Under the eligibility rules, a primary covered position is
     a position in the CBPO (GS-1895) job series or any successor position, the duties
     of which include activities relating to the arrival and departure of persons,
     conveyances, and merchandise at ports of entry. 4          5 U.S.C. § 8401(36); see

     4
       For periods of service before September 1, 2007, Office of Personnel Management
     regulations define a primary covered position as:
           (i) A position whose duties included the performance of work directly
           connected with activities relating to the arrival and departure of persons,
           conveyances, and merchandise at ports of entry that was classified within
           the Immigration Inspector Series (GS-1816), Customs Inspector Series
           (GS-1890), Canine Enforcement Officer Series (GS-1801), or any other
           series which the agency head determines were predecessor series t o the
           Customs and Border Protection Series (GS-1895), and that would have
           been classified under the GS-1895 series had it then existed; and
           (ii) A position within the Customs and Border Protection Series
           (GS-1895) whose duties included the performance of work directly
                                                                                           5

     5 C.F.R. § 842.1002.         A secondary covered position is a position in the
     Department of Homeland Security that is either supervisory or administrative.
     5 C.F.R. § 842.1002.
¶7         To be eligible for enhanced CBPO retirement coverage, an employee must
     occupy a primary covered position, or have transferred directly to a secondary
     covered position with the agency without a break in service of more than 3 days,
     after occupying a primary covered position for at least 3 years.         See 5 U.S.C.
     § 8401(36).   Thus, employees occupying secondary covered positions are only
     eligible for enhanced CBPO retirement coverage if they transferred directly
     (without a break in service of more than 3 days) from a primary covered position
     and completed 3 years of service in a primary position.                      5 C.F.R.
     § 842.1003(b)(1)-(2).
¶8         The appellant served in CBPO primary covered positions from January 30,
     2000, until July 22, 2006, and from April 1, 2007, until March 29, 2008. IAF,
     Tab 12 at 40-46. On March 30, 2008, the appellant transferred to a position that
     was eligible for law enforcement officer (LEO) special retirement coverage as a
     secondary position, not enhanced CBPO retirement coverage. Id. at 38-39. He
     transferred from that position to a CBPO secondary covered position on
     September 14, 2008, and has held various CBPO secondary covered positions
     since then, including his current position. Id. at 12-37.
¶9         Based on the eligibility rules set forth above, the administrative judge found
     that, although it is undisputed that the appellant had the requisite amount of
     primary covered service, he is ineligible for enhanced CBPO retirement coverage
     because he did not transfer directly from a CBPO primary covered position to a
     CBPO secondary covered position as required by statute.             ID at 4-5.      The

           connected with activities relating to the arrival and departure of persons,
           conveyances, and merchandise at ports of entry.
     5 C.F.R. § 842.1003(c)(1).
                                                                                       6

      administrative judge considered the appellant’s argument that denying him CBPO
      retirement coverage is unjust, given all of the positions he has held that offer
      enhanced retirement benefits and the agency’s error in placing him in the wrong
      retirement system until 2015. ID at 5. The administrative judge explained that,
      although she understood the appellant’s frustration, neither the agency nor the
      Board can provide benefits when an appellant is not statutorily entitled to them.
      Id. The administrative judge added that, because the appellant is not statutorily
      entitled to CBPO enhanced retirement benefits, she could not provide an equitable
      remedy, as the Government cannot be estopped from denying benefits when the
      individual does not meet the statutory requirements for that benefit.     ID at 6
      (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 416, 434
      (1990)).
¶10         On review, the appellant reiterates his assertion that h e accepted the
      Supervisory CBPO (Enforcement) position—i.e., the LEO secondary covered
      position that he occupied from March 30 through September 13, 2008—because
      the vacancy announcement for the position stated that the selectee would serve as
      a secondary LEO, thereby clearly indicating that he would be eligible for LEO
      retirement coverage upon acceptance of the position. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5; IAF,
      Tab 17 at 6-7, 17.     He contends that he should be allowed to revoke his
      acceptance of the LEO secondary covered position because he would not have
      accepted the position if it did not include special retirement coverage. PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 5.
¶11         This argument is unavailing. As the administrative judge explained in the
      initial decision, serving in a position does not mean that an employee will
      eventually receive the type of retirement associated with the position. ID at 5.
      Thus, it was not reasonable for the appellant to assume that he would be eligible
      for LEO special retirement coverage upon accepting the Supervisory CBPO
      (Enforcement)   position.     Moreover,   LEO    and   CBPO     service   are   not
      interchangeable and service under one enhanced retirement system is not
                                                                                               7

      creditable under the other system.         IAF, Tab 17 at 13 (division E, title V,
      § 535(e)(5) of the CAA).
¶12         We also find unpersuasive the appellant’s argument on review that he is
      entitled to enhanced CBPO retirement benefits because the agency stated in its
      January 17, 2014 letter notifying him of his selection for a GS-14 Program
      Manager (Watch Commander) position that his retirement coverage in that
      position would be “Secondary CBPO Enhanced,” and he accepted the position
      based on this statement. 5 PFR File, Tab 1 at 6; IAF, Tab 17 at 23. Regardless of
      whether the appellant accepted that position, he would have been ineligible for
      enhanced CBPO retirement benefits because he did not transfer directly from a
      CBPO primary covered position to a CBPO secondary covered position in 2008.
      Thus, even if the appellant accepted the Program Manager (Watch Commander)
      position based on the erroneous information in the selection letter concerning his
      retirement coverage, his reliance on that misinformation did not inure to his
      detriment.
¶13         Therefore, based upon our review of the record, we find that the
      administrative judge correctly found that the appellant is ineligible for enhanced
      CBPO retirement benefits.

                                NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
             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

      5
        In his petition for review, the appellant incorrectly identifies the date of the agency’s
      letter as December 3, 2014, and the type of retirement coverage described in the letter
      as “Enhanced CBP Officer.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 6.
      6
        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.
                                                                                        8

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:
                              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
                                                                                   9

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
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,
                                                                                  10

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
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. 7   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

7
  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
                                                                                     11

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.

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.
                                                                       12

      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.