Court Opinion

ID: 9373271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:51.893498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.466001
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TERESA ANN BUTERA,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-0831-17-0326-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: October 28, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Teresa Ann Butera, Helena, Alabama, pro se.

           Carla Robinson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her appeal of a final decision of the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM) reducing her retirement annuity as untimely.              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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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 review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as
     expressly MODIFIED to vacate the administrative judge’s finding regarding the
     delay between the appellant’s alleged realization of the reduction in her monthly
     benefit check and the filing of her initial appeal, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2        On petition for review, the appellant repeats her request that the Board
     allow her to make a deposit for her post-1956 military service in order to avoid
     the reduction of her retirement annuity by OPM. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 1. She repeats her assertion that she did not receive OPM’s final decision
     letter informing her that her annuity would be reduced by eliminating credit for
     her post-1956 military service.    Id.; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 7-8.
     Although she maintains that she has been unable to update her address with OPM,
     she confirms that her daughter lives at the address to which OPM’s final decision
     letter was sent. PFR File, Tab 1. Finally, the appellant asserts for the first time
     on review that her daughter “never received this particular piece of mail or she
     would have given it to [the appellant],” because her daughter generally called the
     appellant when she received mail at the address. Id. The appellant has not shown
     that this argument regarding her daughter is based on new and material evidence
     not previously available despite her due diligence. See Banks v. Department of
     the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).
                                                                                            3

¶3         The appellant did not request a hearing, and the timeliness issue was
     decided on the basis of the written record.        IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 12, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 1.     The initial decision correctly found that the appeal was
     untimely and that the appellant failed to show good cause for her untimeliness.
     ID at 3-4.    Although the appellant is pro se, a 245-day 2 delay in filing is
     significant, as the administrative judge correctly pointed out. ID at 4; see Crook
     v. U.S. Postal Service, 108 M.S.P.R. 553, ¶ 6, aff’d, 301 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir.
     2008).
¶4         The appellant’s bare assertion that she did not receive OPM’s final
     decision, while acknowledging that she previously received OPM correspondence
     through her daughter at the address of record, is unconvincing. IAF, Tab 11 at 1.
     The Board has held in other circumstances that an appellant’s general statement,
     without more, that her petition for review was lost in the mail is not sufficient to
     show timeliness. See Robinson v. Office of Personnel Management, 56 M.S.P.R.
     325, 327 (noting that the appellant failed to provide any evidence or specifically
     allege the date on which the petition was allegedly filed) , aff’d, 5 F.3d 1505 (Fed.
     Cir. 1993).    She failed to provide any explanation regarding the date and
     circumstances of her receipt of OPM’s decision letter, which she submitted int o
     the record before OPM’s first submission in the present appeal.            IAF, Tab 3.
     Moreover, as noted by the administrative judge, the address to which OPM mailed
     the final decision was the same address of record the appellant designated in the
     present appeal, despite her assertion below that she had not resided at that address
     since 2005. ID at 3; IAF, Tab 1 at 1, Tab 11 at 1.

     2
       The administrative judge found that the initial appeal was filed 255 days after the
     filing deadline. ID at 2. In fact, OPM’s final decision became effective on June 1,
     2016. IAF, Tab 5 at 7-8. The deadline to file an initial appeal was July 1, 2016.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1). Thus, the appellant’s March 3, 2017 initial appeal was filed
     245 days after the filing deadline. This discrepancy is immaterial. The appellant has
     failed to show that her appeal was timely or that good cause existed for the delay (be it
     245 or 255 days).
                                                                                           4

¶5         The administrative judge found that the appellant failed to establish that she
     exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence justifying why, when she alleged
     that she contacted OPM after noticing the reduction in her annu ity, which became
     effective June 1, 2016, and was told by OPM that she could file an appeal with
     the Board, she waited until March 3, 2017, to file the present appeal. ID at 3.
     We find the appellant’s general statements insufficient to demonstrate that she did
     not receive OPM’s decision letter prior to the effective date of the annuity
     reduction, or adequately explain the untimeliness of her appeal . Therefore, we
     vacate the administrative judge’s finding, “presuming arguendo that the appellant
     did not receive [OPM’s] letter,” that her explanation that she contacted OPM after
     noticing the reduction in her monthly check justified “some delay . . . but not a
     delay of well over half a year.” Id. (emphasis in original).
¶6         Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm as modified the
     initial decision.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
            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 an d
     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

     3
       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

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 ou r 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.
                                                                                  6

      (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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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,
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:
                                                                                      7

                            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. 4 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).

4
   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

      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 particu lar
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.
      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.