Court Opinion

ID: 9372963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:50.008443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.097153
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     NORMAN A. JOHNSON,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         NY-831M-21-0122-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: January 31, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Norman A. Johnson, Brooklyn, New York, pro se.

           Carla Robinson, 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
     dismissed his appeal regarding an overpayment of Civil Service Retirement
     System (CSRS) annuity benefits for lack of jurisdiction.         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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 a pplication 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 affec ted 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 review.     Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and
     AFFIRM the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). However, we REMAND
     the matter of the proper calculation of the appellant’s annuity and any resulting
     overpayment to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for its further
     consideration consistent with this Remand Order.

                                        BACKGROUND
¶2         On July 2, 2021, the appellant filed a Board appeal challenging a June 21,
     2021 determination by OPM that he had been overpaid $7,088.50 because of his
     concurrent   receipt   of   CSRS    annuity   benefits   and   Office   of   Workers’
     Compensation Programs (OWCP) benefits between November 1, 2015, and
     May 30, 2021. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 3-4, 12. 2 The appellant also
     disputed OPM’s calculation of his monthly CSRS deferred annuity payments. Id.
     at 13-14.    In so doing, he explained that he had already appealed OPM’s

     2
       OPM’s June 21, 2021 determination seemingly contradicted a prior finding that the
     appellant could permissibly receive CSRS deferred annuity benefits and OWCP benefits
     concurrently because they stemmed from two separate periods of Federal service. IAF,
     Tab 1 at 6-7; Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-0831-
     17-0205-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 11 at 6.
                                                                                     3

     calculation of his monthly annuity payments to the Board only to have OPM
     “rescind its prior decisions.” Id. at 14.
¶3         The administrative judge dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction
     because OPM had not yet issued a final decision regarding the $7,088.50
     overpayment. IAF, Tab 9, Initial Decision at 2. The appellant has filed a petition
     for review of the initial decision. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.

                                          ANALYSIS
¶4         The Board generally has jurisdiction over OPM determinations affecting an
     appellant’s rights or interests under CSRS only after OPM has issued a final
     decision.   Morin v. Office of Personnel Management, 107 M.S.P.R. 534, ¶ 8
     (2007), aff’d, 287 F. App’x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1);
     5 C.F.R. § 831.110. As an exception to this general rule, however, the Board may
     assert jurisdiction over an appeal concerning a retirement matter in which OPM
     has refused or improperly failed to issue a final decision. Hasanadka v. Office of
     Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R. 636, ¶ 21 (2011).
¶5         Here, the appellant has, since 2017, repeatedly attempted to appeal a
     2016 recalculation of his CSRS deferred annuity benefits. E.g., Johnson v. Office
     of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-0831-17-0205-I-1, Initial
     Appeal File (0205 IAF), Tab 1 at 1. Indeed, on both April 26, 2017, and June 19,
     2018, OPM issued reconsideration decisions concluding that, as a result of the
     2016 recalculation, the appellant had been overpaid $13,860.40 in annuity
     benefits between December 12, 2008, and October 30, 2015. 0205 IAF, Tab 11
     at 5-6; Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-0831-
     18-0149-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0149 IAF), Tab 1 at 5-6.        OPM, however,
     subsequently rescinded both of these reconsideration decisions and, on
     January 21, 2020, ultimately elected to waive recoupment of the $13,860.40 debt
     stemming from the overpayment.          0205 IAF, Tab 13 at 4; 0149 IAF, Tab 15
     at 4-5; Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-0831-
                                                                                           4

     20-0025-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0025 IAF), Tab 9 at 7. 3 Thus, the appellant has
     yet to have the opportunity to litigate the 2016 recalculation of his benefits.
¶6         We agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that OPM had not yet
     issued a final decision regarding the $7,088.50 overpayment, which allegedl y
     accrued between November 1, 2015, and May 30, 2021. 4                IAF, Tab 1 at 3.
     However, the Board may assert jurisdiction over an appeal concerning a
     retirement matter in which OPM has refused or improperly failed to issue a final
     decision. As stated, the pro se appellant has repeatedly attempted to challenge
     the 2016 recalculation of his CSRS deferred annuity benefits; this recalculation
     would undoubtedly impact the $7,088.50 overpayment. It is unclear from the
     record whether OPM’s apparent failure to provide the appellant with an
     appealable decision regarding the 2016 recalculation of his CSRS deferred
     annuity benefits is intentional; thus, we find that it is preferable to allow OPM to
     clearly express its position regarding both the calculation of the appellant’s
     annuity benefits and any overpayment related thereto before we determine
     whether to exercise jurisdiction. See Hasanadka, 116 M.S.P.R. 636, ¶ 21.

     3
       In waiving collection of the $13,860.40 overpayment, OPM st ated that the
     overpayment stemmed from “CSRS disability annuity payments”; however, the
     appellant has not received CSRS disability retirement benefits since 1985. 0025 IAF,
     Tab 9 at 7 (emphasis added); IAF, Tab 1 at 6, 11.
     4
       The appellant’s initial $13,860.40 debt purportedly accrued between December 12,
     2008, and October 30, 2015, because of the 2016 recalculation of his CSRS deferred
     annuity benefits. 0205 IAF, Tab 11 at 5-6. His current debt of $7,088.50 apparently
     began to accrue on November 1, 2015, i.e., immediately thereafter. IAF, Tab 1 at 3-4.
     The appellant’s current debt is purportedly related to his receipt of both CSRS deferred
     annuity benefits and OWCP benefits. Id. at 3. The record, however, reflects that the
     appellant has been continually receiving OWCP benefits since 1996. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 11.
                                                                                          5

                                           ORDER
¶7         We therefore remand both matters to OPM for its further consideration.
     Should OPM issue a final decision 5 that is unfavorable to the appellant regarding
     the recalculation of his CSRS deferred annuity benefits and/or any outstanding
     debt related to an overpayment thereof, he may file a new appeal of that decision
     to the Board. See 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 831.110. The appellant’s
     appeal must be filed within the time limits set forth in the Board’s regulations.
     See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22.
¶8         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).
     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 Board’s

     5
       OPM argued before the administrative judge that the June 21, 2021 determination
     did not “appear[]” to constitute an initial decision because the determination did not
     inform the appellant of his right to request reconsideration. IAF, Tab 6 at 4. However,
     OPM has previously provided the appellant with an initial decision absent such
     information. 0149 IAF, Tab 1 at 5-6, Tab 10 at 2, 20-21. Accordingly, we find that the
     June 21, 2021 determination constitutes an initial decision.
                                                                         6

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.