Court Opinion

ID: 9951109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 17:00:24.587602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:15.288669
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RICHARD MILLER,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DE-0831-14-0340-C-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: March 14, 2024
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

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

           Angerlia D. Johnson , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                           ORDER

¶1         The appellant has timely petitioned for review of the January 26, 2023
     compliance initial decision, which denied his petition for enforcement of the
     Board’s order directing the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue a
     final decision on his rights and interests under the Civil Service Retirement
     System (CSRS). For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     petition for review, REVERSE the compliance initial decision, FIND OPM in
     NONCOMPLIANCE, and ORDER OPM to issue a final decision.

                                        BACKGROUND

¶2         The appellant retired from Federal civilian service in 2012 after a career
     that included both civilian and military service.    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).        OPM granted his application for
     immediate CSRS retirement but, in a March 2014 reconsideration decision,
     determined that certain periods of his employment were not creditable for
     purposes of calculating his CSRS annuity because they were credited as military
     service towards his military retirement.         Miller v. Office of Personnel
     Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-0340-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 4 at 5-7. The appellant filed an appeal of the matter with the Board and,
     thereafter, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Miller v. Office
     of Personnel Management, 903 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit
     issued a precedential decision on September 10, 2018, and remanded the appeal to
     the Board for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Id. at 1286. On
     August 15, 2022, the Board issued an order remanding the case to OPM in
     accordance with the Federal Circuit’s decision for the issuance of a new final
     decision addressing the recalculation of the appellant’s CSRS retirement annuity.
     Miller v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-0340-
     M-1, Remand Order, ¶ 12 (Aug. 15, 2022) (Remand Order). It also ordered OPM
     to issue a final decision addressing a new refund request by the appellant in the
     first instance.   Id., ¶¶ 11-12.   The Board stated that 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.”   Id., ¶ 12.   Finally, the Board ordered OPM to “tell the appellant
                                                                                         3

     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.” Id., ¶ 13.
¶3         On October 14, 2022, more than 60 days following the issuance of the
     Board’s Order, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement averring that he had
     not received written notification from OPM that it had complied with the Board’s
     Order. Miller v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-
     14-0340-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 1. The administrative judge issued an
     Order to Show Cause to OPM on December 20, 2022. CF, Tab 9. In response,
     OPM submitted to the Board a letter, which it identified as an initial decision,
     dated January 13, 2023. CF, Tab 14 at 4-33. The letter informed the appellant of
     his right to request reconsideration with OPM. Id. at 10. OPM argued before the
     administrative judge that, by issuing an initial decision, it was in full compliance
     with the Board’s Order because there was no further action for it to take. Id. at 4.
     The appellant modified his arguments concerning OPM’s noncompliance by
     contending that OPM’s January 13, 2023 letter was a final decision and
     challenging the merits of that decision with respect to his refund request. CF,
     Tab 17 at 4-15.
¶4         On January 26, 2023, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial
     decision denying the appellant’s petition for enforcement.                CF, Tab 20,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 1. He found that OPM issued an initial
     decision and not a final decision required by the Board’s Order and, therefore,
     had not fully complied with the Order’s directive. CID at 4. Nevertheless, he
     found that OPM was in substantial compliance with the Order because it had
     taken a necessary step toward the issuance of a final decision. CID at 4-6.
¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review. Miller v. Office of Personnel
     Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-0340-C-1, Compliance Petition for
     Review (CPFR) File, Tab 3.        OPM has responded. CPFR File, Tab 5.           The
     appellant has replied to OPM’s response. CPFR File, Tab 6.
                                                                                          4

                                          ANALYSIS

¶6         The appellant asserts in his petition for review, as he did before the
     administrative judge, that OPM’s January 2023 decision was a final decision.
     CPFR File, Tab 3 at 5, 19-22; CF, Tab 17. He argues that the final decision does
     not comply with the Board’s Order because it finds incorrectly that he is not owed
     a refund for CSRS deposits and other payroll deductions. CPFR File, Tab 3 at 6,
     24-31. 2
¶7         In proceedings on a petition for enforcement of a Board order, the agency
     bears the burden of proving that it has complied with the order.          Gay v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 49 M.S.P.R. 219, 230 (1991). We agree with the administrative
     judge that OPM has not shown that it has issued a final decision in this matter as
     ordered by the Board.       CID at 5; Remand Order, ¶ 12.           OPM labeled its
     January 2023 letter as an initial decision and informed the appellant of his right to
     request reconsideration from OPM.           CF, Tab 14 at 10.          Thus, as the
     administrative judge correctly found, OPM’s January 2023 letter was an initial
     decision rather than a final decision. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109(c), (f), .110.
¶8         However, since the issuance of the Board’s initial decision in this matter,
     the 30-day time limit for the appellant to file a request for reconsideration has
     expired. See 5 C.F.R. § 831.109(e)(2). OPM has not shown that it has issued a
     reconsideration decision under section 831.109(f)(1) or, absent a request for
     reconsideration from the appellant, a final decision under section 831.109(f)(2),
     which would provide the appellant the opportunity to appeal to the Board.
     5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109(f), .110. The Board’s Remand Order required OPM to issue
     a final decision and advise the appellant of his right to file an appeal with the
     2
       The appellant also argues—mistakenly—that the administrative judge engaged in ex
     parte communications with OPM and requests that the ex parte communication be
     stricken from the record. CPFR File, Tab 3 at 23-24. What the appellant identifies as
     evidence of an ex parte communication is an excerpt from a pleading by OPM that was
     properly served on the appellant and admitted into the record. Id. at 24; CID at 5; CF,
     Tab 10 at 4-5. We find no evidence that any prohibited ex parte communication took
     place. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.101.
                                                                                          5

      Board’s Denver Field Office if he disagrees with that decision. Remand Order,
      ¶ 12. We therefore find that OPM is in noncompliance with the Board’s Remand
      Order.
¶9          Accordingly, we order OPM to issue a final decision that addresses the
      recalculation of the appellant’s CSRS retirement annuity and the appellant’s
      refund request. In its final decision, OPM shall address the appellant’s challenges
      to the merits of his refund request as set forth in his pleadings before the Board.
      OPM shall also provide a clear explanation of its calculations for any amounts
      previously refunded to the appellant. OPM shall advise the appellant in its new
      final decision of his right to file an appeal with the Board’s Denver Field Office if
      he disagrees with that decision.

                                            ORDER

¶10         We ORDER OPM to submit to the Clerk of the Board, within 30 days of the
      date of this Order satisfactory evidence of compliance.        This evidence shall
      adhere to the requirements set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(6)(i), including
      submission of evidence and a narrative statement of compliance.          OPM must
      serve all parties with copies of its submission.
¶11         OPM’s submission should be filed under the new docket number
      assigned to this compliance referral matter, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-14-
      0340-X-1. All subsequent filings should refer to the compliance referral docket
      number set forth above and should be faxed to (202) 653-7130 or mailed to the
      following address:
                                     Clerk of the Board
                             U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
                                    1615 M Street, N.W.
                                  Washington, D.C. 20419
      Submissions also may be made by electronic filing at the Board’s e-Appeal site
      (https://e-appeal.mspb.gov) in accordance with its regulation at 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.14.
                                                                                        6

¶12        The appellant may respond to OPM’s evidence of compliance within
      20 days of the date of service of OPM’s submission.     5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(8).
      If the appellant does not respond to OPM’s evidence of compliance, the Board
      may assume that he is satisfied with OPM’s actions and dismiss the petition for
      enforcement.
¶13        OPM is reminded that, if it fails to provide adequate evidence of
      compliance, the responsible agency official and the agency’s representative may
      be required to appear before the General Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection
      Board to show cause why the Board should not impose sanctions for OPM’s
      noncompliance in this case.     5 C.F.R. § 1201.183.    The Board’s authority to
      impose sanctions includes the authority to order that the responsible agency
      official “shall not be entitled to receive payment for service as an employee
      during any period that the order has not been complied with.” 5 U.S.C. § 1204(e)
      (2)(A).
¶14        This Order does not constitute a final order and therefore is not subject to
      judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). Upon the Board’s final resolution of
      the remaining issue in the petition for enforcement, a final order shall be issued,
      which then shall be subject to judicial review.

      FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                            Gina K. Grippando
                                            Clerk of the Board

      Washington, D.C.