Court Opinion

ID: 9908648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 16:01:15.88926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:23.058598
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2200    Document: 40    Page: 1   Filed: 12/11/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  WILLIAM H. LEMON,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2022-2200
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. PH-0842-22-0006-I-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 11, 2023
                  ______________________

    WILLIAM H. LEMON, Lewes, DE, pro se.

     MILES KARSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD
 THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

      Before DYK, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-2200    Document: 40      Page: 2    Filed: 12/11/2023

 2                                              LEMON v. OPM

 PER CURIAM.
                          DECISION
      William H. Lemon petitions for review of the final de-
 cision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that
 affirmed the decision of the Office of Personnel Manage-
 ment (“OPM”) that Mr. Lemon was not eligible to receive
 annuity benefits under the Federal Employees’ Retirement
 System (“FERS”). Suppl. App. 1. 1 We have jurisdiction
 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). For the reasons set
 forth below, we affirm.
                         DISCUSSION
                              I
     Mr. Lemon worked for the U.S. Postal Service from ap-
 proximately December 7, 1985, until June 26, 1998. Suppl.
 App. 2. During this period he was covered by FERS. Id. at
 40–41. FERS is outlined in Chapter 84 of Title 5 of the
 United States Code. In June of 2021, Mr. Lemon applied
 for a deferred or postponed annuity. Id. at 27–30 (“De-
 ferred Annuity Application”). Former federal employees
 who were covered by FERS are eligible for a deferred an-
 nuity if they completed a certain number of years of service.
 See 5 U.S.C. § 8413. In his application, Mr. Lemon indi-
 cated that he had never previously filed an application un-
 der FERS for a refund, for retirement, for deposit, or for
 redeposit. Suppl. App. 28.
     In a letter dated August 23, 2021, OPM informed Mr.
 Lemon that it had determined that he was not eligible to
 receive an annuity under FERS. Id. at 25. OPM stated
 that this was because it had determined that Mr. Lemon
 had filed an application for a refund of his FERS retire-
 ment deductions on January 2, 1999 (“Refund

     1 Our citations to “Suppl. App.” refer to the Supple-

 mental Appendix attached to Respondent’s brief.
Case: 22-2200    Document: 40      Page: 3    Filed: 12/11/2023

 LEMON v. OPM                                               3

 Application”), and that a refund of those deductions in the
 amount of $4,116.85 had been authorized on February 19,
 1999. Id. OPM explained to Mr. Lemon, “[s]ince you have
 received a refund of your retirement deductions, you are
 not entitled to an annuity. The law that applies in your
 case is section 8424(a) of title 5, United States Code. It
 voids annuity rights that are based on refunded service.”
 Id. OPM concluded by informing Mr. Lemon that this was
 its final decision in the matter. Id.
                              II
     Mr. Lemon timely appealed OPM’s final decision to the
 Board. There, he claimed that he never sought a refund of
 his FERS retirement deductions, that he never received a
 refund check, and that his former wife had completed the
 Refund Application and forged his signature on it. Suppl.
 App. 4.
     On January 18, 2022, a hearing was held before the ad-
 ministrative judge (“AJ”) assigned to the case. Id. at 1. At
 the hearing, Mr. Lemon reiterated that he had not signed
 the Refund Application. Id. at 4–5. Rather, he testified
 that he believed that his former wife had completed the Re-
 fund Application, based on the names of the witnesses on
 the application, his former wife’s access to the required in-
 formation, and the fact that, as a federal employee, she was
 familiar with the refund application process. Id. at 5. Mr.
 Lemon also testified that he had completed the Deferred
 Annuity Application in June of 2021 and that it contained
 his handwriting and signature. Id. at 6. During the hear-
 ing, Mr. Lemon was asked to compare the handwriting and
 signatures on the Refund Application and the Deferred An-
 nuity Application. He testified that he could tell that the
 handwriting and signatures on the Refund Application
 were not his because they were very neat. Id.
     Following the hearing, on January 28, 2022, the AJ
 rendered her initial decision. The AJ stated that she be-
 lieved Mr. Lemon “does not recall requesting a refund of
Case: 22-2200     Document: 40      Page: 4    Filed: 12/11/2023

 4                                                LEMON v. OPM

 his retirement deductions over 20 years ago.” Id. at 7. Nev-
 ertheless, she did not credit Mr. Lemon’s testimony that he
 did not complete the Refund Application and that he never
 received a refund check. Regarding the issue of the Refund
 Application, the AJ stated:
     I have reviewed the signatures and handwriting on
     the Deferred Annuity Application and compared
     them with the signature and handwriting on the
     Refund Application. See Boyling v. Department of
     the Army, 6 M.S.P.R. 276, 278 (1981) (stating that
     a trier of fact may compare handwriting and draw
     conclusions therefrom in the presence or absence of
     expert opinion). Although the signature on the Re-
     fund Application is arguably “neater,” the lettering
     style of the capital “W” is nearly identical to the two
     signatures on the Deferred Annuity Application.
     Additionally, the handwriting on both applications
     are substantially similar, particularly the “T”s,
     “R”s, “2”s, and “6”s. Notably, the “E”s on both ap-
     plications are distinctive. Both applications con-
     tain “E”s that fluctuate between using a typical
     capital E and a curly, backwards 3 looking E. The
     handwritten “I”s on both applications appear to al-
     ways be in lower case, unlike the rest of the letters.
     Further, the “X”s used to check the boxes on both
     applications have a distinctive vertical line that
     connects the top left of the “X” to the bottom left of
     the “X.” Thus, the foregoing handwriting analysis
     supports the conclusion that the appellant applied
     for a refund of his retirement contributions.
 Suppl. App. 7–8 (record citations omitted). The AJ also
 noted that Mr. Lemon’s date of birth was incorrect on the
 Refund Application, but stated that this “appear[ed] to be
 a misprint” since Mr. Lemon’s stated birthdate was the
 same as the date the application was signed. Id. at 8 n.7.
Case: 22-2200     Document: 40      Page: 5   Filed: 12/11/2023

 LEMON v. OPM                                                5

     Next, the AJ pointed to Mr. Lemon’s testimony that he
 completed a change of address form after he separated
 from his wife, so that his mail to his old address was for-
 warded to his new address. On this basis, the AJ deter-
 mined that Mr. Lemon’s former wife would not have had
 access to the refund check and that Mr. Lemon did in fact
 receive a refund check of his retirement contributions. Id.
 at 8. Finally noting OPM’s “routine records” and Mr.
 Lemon’s testimony, the AJ stated that Mr. Lemon had “not
 produced evidence to overcome OPM’s evidence that he ap-
 plied for and received a refund of his retirement contribu-
 tions” and that he had not “met his burden to prove that
 his refund application was the result of fraud.” Id. (citing
 Manoharan v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 103 M.S.P.R. 159, ¶¶12–
 15 (2006); Rint v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 48 M.S.P.R. 69, 72
 (1991), aff’d 950 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
     Having found that Mr. Lemon received a lump-sum
 payment of his retirement contributions, the AJ held that,
 under 5 U.S.C. § 8424(a), he was not entitled to receive a
 deferred annuity. She therefore affirmed OPM’s decision.
 Id. at 8–9.
      Mr. Lemon timely petitioned the Board for review of
 the AJ’s initial decision. The Board denied the petition and
 affirmed the initial decision on August 19, 2022. Id. at 20.
 The AJ’s initial decision therefore became the final decision
 of the Board. This appeal followed.
                              III
      Our review of the Board’s decision is limited by statute.
 We must affirm a final decision of the Board unless it is
 “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
 wise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-
 cedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
 followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see also Hayes v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727
 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Substantial evidence
 “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
Case: 22-2200    Document: 40      Page: 6   Filed: 12/11/2023

 6                                             LEMON v. OPM

 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edi-
 son Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
     Mr. Lemon’s sole argument on appeal is that the AJ
 incorrectly decided the facts of his case. Thus, he repeats
 his claims that he never sought a refund of his FERS re-
 tirement deductions, that he never received a refund check,
 and that his former wife had completed the Refund Appli-
 cation and forged his signatures on it, as evidenced in part
 by the incorrect birthdate on the Refund Application.
 Pet’r’s Informal Br. Attach. 1–3; Pet’r’s Replacement Reply
 Br. 1–2; Pet’r’s Mem. in Lieu of Arg. 2–4.
     Substantial evidence clearly supports the decision of
 the Board. We have set forth this evidence above. As
 noted, the AJ carefully examined and compared the hand-
 writing on the Refund Application and the Deferred Annu-
 ity Application and explained the discrepancy regarding
 Mr. Lemon’s birthdate. In addition, she had before her the
 evidence of Mr. Lemon’s change of address and the records
 of OPM. All of this led the AJ to find that Mr. Lemon had
 not overcome OPM’s evidence that he had applied for a re-
 fund of his FERS retirement deductions, that he had re-
 ceived the refund, and that he had not been the victim of
 fraud. While Mr. Lemon vigorously disputes the AJ’s find-
 ings of fact, we cannot say that those findings are not sup-
 ported by such evidence “as a reasonable mind might
 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” We therefore
 see no error in the AJ’s decision affirming OPM’s denial of
 Mr. Lemon’s application for a deferred annuity.
                        CONCLUSION
     For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the final decision
 of the Board.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.