Court Opinion

ID: 9397746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 06:00:15.301052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.304986
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JAMES C. SCOTT, JR.,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DA-0845-16-0534-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 25, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           James C. Scott, Jr., San Antonio, Texas, 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
     affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM), finding that OPM correctly determined the existence and amount of the
     overpayment and that the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to waiver of

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     collection of the overpayment.     In his petition, the appellant argues that he is
     entitled to waiver of collection of the overpayment because he was unable to
     inform OPM that he was receiving Social Security disability payments because
     from 2007 to 2013 he was severely ill. 2 He also reiterates his contention made
     below that “his rights were discriminated” due to his disability. 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 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 find the appellant at fault in receipt of the overpayment,
     we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         In her initial decision, the administrative judge found the appellant was not
     entitled to waiver of recovery of the overpayment because he had received letters
     from OPM that clearly explained his obligation to set aside the Social Security
     disability checks that he received so that he would be able to repay the
     overpayment that would be created during the period that he received both
     Federal Employees’ Retirement System and Social Security disability benefit
     payments. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 16, Initial Decision (ID) at 11; IAF,

     2
       The appellant does not assert, and we do not find, any error in the administrative
     judge’s finding that OPM correctly determined the existence and amount of the annuity
     overpayment.
                                                                                        3

     Tab 12 at 33, 60, 83. She did not credit the appellant’s testimony that he had no
     knowledge about setting aside funds and that OPM never notified him that he was
     responsible for any overpayment. ID at 10-11. Nor did she credit the appellant’s
     testimony that he was incapacitated in 2007 when he retired and thus was unable
     to handle his affairs with OPM, given that the record shows that he filed an
     application for Social Security benefits in late 2006. Id. The Board will defer to
     the credibility findings of the administrative judge and will not grant a petition
     for review based on a mere disagreement with those findings.        Crosby v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997).
¶3        Although the administrative judge concluded that the appellant knew that
     the receipt of Social Security disability benefits would trigger an overpayment,
     she found that he was without fault in the overpayment, crediting his testimony
     that he began receiving Social Security disability benefits in 2010 and notified
     OPM in 2010 via telephone of the same. ID at 5, 10-11; Hearing Record (HR)
     (testimony of the appellant). However, on review, the appellant states that he
     started receiving Social Security disability benefits in November 2007. Petition
     for Review File, Tab 1 at 2. His assertion is supported by the documentation in
     the record, which includes a payment history listing November 2007, as the first
     payment for Social Security disability benefits. IAF, Tab 12 at 18-19.
¶4        OPM’s “Policy Guidelines on the Disposition of Overpayments under the
     Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employees’ Retirement System”
     (Guidelines) provide that an individual is not without fault if he accepted a
     payment that he “should have known to be erroneous.”         IAF, Tab 12 at 113.
     However, OPM’s Guidelines also provide an exception to this rule, i.e., the
     Prompt   Notification   Exception,   which   states   that   an   individual   “will
     automatically be found without fault, regardless of whether they knew or should
     have known that the payment was erroneous, if they promptly contact OPM and
     question the correctness of the overpayment.” Id. at 114. Prompt notification is
     defined as within 60 days of receipt of the overpayment. Id. As set forth above,
                                                                                            4

     the administrative judge found that the appellant knew that the Social Security
     disability benefits would trigger an overpayment.         ID at 10-11.     Because we
     discern no basis for disturbing that finding and the appellant did not promptly
     contact OPM within 60 days of his receipt of such benefits, he is considered at
     fault under OPM’s guidance. IAF, Tab 12 at 33, 60, 113-14; HR (testimony of
     the appellant).    However, because the administrative judge affirmed OPM’s
     decision finding that the appellant was not entitled to a waiver of the
     overpayment, the finding of fault has no impact on the outcome of this case.
¶5         Although the administrative judge properly found that the appellant
     provided no evidence to support his disability discrimination claim, ID at 2 n.2, it
     appears from the appellant’s assertions on review that he may not be alleging
     disability discrimination but rather asserting that recovery of the overpayment
     would be unconscionable given his work-related disability. The appellant’s claim
     is without merit because, as the administrative judge correctly found, the
     appellant failed to show that recovery of the overpayment was unconscionable.
¶6         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision. 3

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
           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

     3
       OPM has advised the Board that it may seek recovery of any debt remaining upon an
     appellant’s death from the appellant’s estate or other responsible party. A party
     responsible for any debt remaining upon the appellant’s death may include an heir
     (spouse, child or other) who is deriving a benefit from the appellant’s Federal benefits,
     an heir or other person acting as the representative of the estate if, for example, the
     representative fails to pay the United States before paying the claims of other creditors
     in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b), or transferees or distributers of the appellant’s
     estate. Pierotti v. Office of Personnel Management, 124 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 13 (2016).
     4
       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 indica ted in the notice, the
     Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        5

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 situati on 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).
      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
                                                                                   6

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 att orney nor warrants 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 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. 420 (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 securi ty.          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.
                                                                                 7

      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
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
                                                                                      8

competent jurisdiction. 5   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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

5
   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.
                                                                        9

      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.