Court Opinion

ID: 9399436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-03 06:00:18.858749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.679733
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CECIL ALLEN SANDERS, JR.,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        AT-0843-17-0575-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: June 2, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Cecil Allen Sanders, Jr., Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, pro se.

           Carla Robinson, 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
     dismissed his appeal from the initial decision of the Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM) denying his application for a Federal Employees Retirement
     System (FERS) survivor annuity for lack of jurisdiction. On petition for review,

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the appellant argues that the Board has jurisdiction to review the merits of his
     application for those benefits because OPM has improperly delayed issuing a
     final decision and that he is entitled to a FERS survivor annuity based on his
     deceased wife’s Federal service. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 1. In
     support, the appellant submits nearly 400 pages of documents pertaining to the
     decedent’s Federal employment. Id. at 2-393. He further alleges, for the first
     time on review, that OPM is discriminating against him because he is
     Korean-American. Id. at 1.
¶2         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 petitione r has not
     established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
     Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
     address the appellant’s jurisdictional arguments and evidence submitted on
     review, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶3         We consider the appellant’s new argument and evidence submitted on
     petition for review to the extent that it relates to the jurisdictional issue. PFR
     File, Tab 1.   The appellant did not receive sufficient opportunity to meet his
     jurisdictional burden below before the initial decision’s issuance. Initial Appeal
     File, Tab 7, Initial Decision (ID) at 2; see Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection
     Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (finding that an appellant must
                                                                                         3

     receive explicit information on what is required to establish an appealable
     jurisdictional issue). However, the administrative judge’s error does not provide
     a basis for review because she notified him of his burden in the initial decision,
     thus affording him an opportunity to meet his burden on review. See Parker v.
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, 106 M.S.P.R. 329, ¶ 8 (2007)
     (explaining that an administrative judge’s failure to provide Burgess notice can be
     cured if the agency’s pleadings or the initial decision contain the notice that was
     lacking, thus affording the appellant an opportunity to establish jurisdiction on
     review); 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).
¶4         The appellant is entitled to a jurisdictional hearing if he raises a
     nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction.      Ferdon v. U.S. Postal Service,
     60 M.S.P.R. 325, 329 (1994).       To establish Board jurisdiction over an OPM
     action affecting an appellant’s rights or interests under FERS in the absence of an
     OPM reconsideration decision, as is the case here, the appellant must show that
     OPM has refused to issue that decision or excessively delayed issuing it despite
     his diligent efforts. Okello v. Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R.
     498, ¶¶ 14-15 (2014); see 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(1).
¶5         We find that the appellant has not met his burden.         It is undisputed that
     OPM did not issue a reconsideration decision on his application for a FERS
     survivor annuity. The appellant’s assertions on review indicate that OPM is in
     the process of reviewing his request for reconsideration. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1 .
     The appellant has failed to provide any evidence showing that OPM has refused
     to issue a reconsideration decision, state the duration of the purported delay, or
     explain his efforts to contact OPM in the interim. Cf. Okello, 120 M.S.P.R. 498,
     ¶ 15 (finding that OPM’s failure to act for 6 years constituted an appealable
     administrative action because the appellant diligently sought a f inal decision
                                                                                      4

during that time period). We therefore agree with the administrative judge, ID
at 1-3, that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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).

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

      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
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 war rants 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 t he 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. distri ct 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 bef ore 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
                                                                                 6

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling c ondition, 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,
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
                                                                                      7

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 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

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
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

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      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.