Court Opinion

ID: 9951594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 15:01:24.091306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:44.355847
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     BENNIE RICHARDSON,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         PH-0845-20-0281-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: March 15, 2024
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Bennie R. Richardson , Moon Township, Pennsylvania, pro se.

           Alison Pastor , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) February 21, 2020 final
     decision.   On petition for review, the appellant reiterates arguments he made
     below, and he asserts that the administrative judge erred in denying his requested

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

witnesses. 2 Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. 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

2
  Regarding the appellant’s argument that the administrative judge erred in denying his
witness requests, neither party attended the prehearing conference during which
witnesses would have been discussed. Initial Appeal File, Tab 58 at 1. In a subsequent
order and summary of the prehearing conference, the administrative judge explained
that the only approved witness to testify at the hearing was the appellant, and he
provided the parties with an opportunity to object to the “completeness and accuracy” of
the order. Id. at 2. The appellant filed no such objection. Further, at the hearing, the
administrative judge reiterated his rulings from the order and summary of the prehearing
conference, and the appellant did not object to being the only witness to testify.
Hearing Recording (statements of the administrative judge and testimony of the
appellant). Therefore, at no time does it appear that the appellant objected to the
administrative judge’s rulings on witnesses. The Board has stated that a failure to
object to a witness ruling or to call for rebuttal witnesses precludes an appellant from
challenging witness rulings on a petition for review. See Alaniz v. U.S. Postal Service,
100 M.S.P.R. 105, ¶ 9 (2005); see also Tarpley v. U.S. Postal Service , 37 M.S.P.R. 579,
581 (1988) (stating that an appellant’s failure to timely object to the administrative
judge’s rulings on witnesses precludes her from doing so on petition for review).
Accordingly, we find that the appellant is precluded from raising this issue on review.
                                                                                       3

review. 3 Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 4 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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

3
  On May 23, 2023, and following the close of record on review, the appellant filed a
motion to dismiss his appeal without prejudice, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.29(a).
PFR File, Tab 15 at 3. The agency did not respond to the appellant’s motion. Because
the appellant has not provided any argument supporting his motion, id., the motion to
dismiss the appeal without prejudice is denied. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.29(b). The
appellant filed another motion on July 9, 2023, requesting leave to file new evidence.
PFR File, Tab 16. Once the record closes on review, no additional evidence or
argument will be accepted unless it is new and material as defined in 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.115(d) and the party submitting it shows that the evidence or argument was not
readily available before the record closed. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(k). Here, the
record on review closed on or around August 6, 2021. The appellant asserts in his
motion that he wishes to submit a May 2, 2023 letter from the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs (OWCP) stating that the Social Security Administration (SSA)
erred in concluding that his OWCP benefits resulted in an overpayment of his Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. PFR File, Tab 16 at 4-5. It is apparent
from the date of the letter that it was not available at the time the record closed on
review. However, taking the appellant’s categorization of the letter as true, the alleged
error concerns the appellant’s OWCP benefits and whether those benefits resulted in an
overpayment by SSA, not by OPM. Any error evidenced by the May 2, 2023 letter is
for SSA to address, and SSA is not a party in this matter. Thus, the letter is not
material to the instant appeal. Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s motion to submit
new evidence.
4
  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 party
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 example, 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).
5
  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.
                                                                                        4

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
                                                                                    5

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,
                                                                                      6

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. 6   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

6
   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,
                                                                                  7

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.

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.