Court Opinion

ID: 9404094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 07:00:20.164625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:11.489972
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ROBERT BROOME,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-0831-18-0676-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: June 21, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Robert Broome, King George, Virginia, pro se.

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

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, w hich
     dismissed his appeal as withdrawn. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT
     the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the case to the regional office for further adjudication in accordance with this
     Remand Order.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        On July 5, 2018, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM or agency)
     issued a final decision recalculating the appellant’s annuity benefit under the
     Civil Service Retirement System. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 4-5. On
     July 16, 2018, the appellant filed a Board appeal contesting OPM’s computation.
     IAF, Tab 1. In an August 13, 2018 order, the administrative judge informed the
     parties that he would initiate a telephonic status conference on September 5,
     2018. IAF, Tab 4.
¶3        The agency representative was present for the September 5, 2018 status
     conference, but the appellant did not appear.          IAF, Tab 7 .    The agency
     representative told the administrative judge that she had spoken with the appellant
     and that the appellant had told her he wished to withdraw his appeal. Id. The
     following day, September 6, 2018, the administrative judge issued an order
     summarizing the status conference.      Id.   He notified the appellant that if he
     withdrew his appeal, it would be dismissed with prejudice, and he directed the
     appellant to notify the Board of his decision by September 14, 2018. Id. The
     administrative judge stated that if he did not receive notice by that date, he would
     dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Id. The appellant did not respond to the order,
     and on September 18, 2018, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     dismissing the appeal. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision.
¶4        On October 15, 2018, the appellant filed a timely petition for review, in
     which he contended that he never asked to withdraw his appeal.          Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2. The agency filed a response. PFR File, Tab 3.
¶5        Subsequently, on January 24, 2023, the appellant submitted an additional
     pleading, in which he requested that the Board “end adjudication” of the case.
     PFR File, Tab 10. On January 27, 2023, the Acting Clerk of the Board issued an
                                                                                             3

     order instructing the appellant to file a pleading within 7 days of the order
     confirming whether he wished to withdraw his petition for review pursuant to the
     Board’s June 28, 2022 Policy Regarding Clerk’s Authority to Grant Requests to
     Withdraw Petitions for Review. 2 PFR File, Tab 11 at 2. The order explained that
     if the appellant did not respond to the order within 7 days, the Board would
     assume that he did not wish to withdraw his petition for review and would instead
     issue a decision on the petition.    Id. The appellant did not respond within 7 days
     but filed a response over 3 months later that did not clearly confirm his intent to
     withdraw his petition. PFR File, Tab 12. The Acting Clerk of the Board issued
     another order, again ordering the appellant to confirm whether he wished to
     withdraw his petition and explaining that if he did not respond within 7 days, the
     Board would assume that he did not wish to withdraw his petition for review and
     would instead issue a decision on the petition. PFR File, Tab 13. The appellant
     did not respond.

                                           ANALYSIS
¶6         Ordinarily, an appellant’s withdrawal of an appeal is an act of finality, and
     in the absence of unusual circumstances such as misinformation or new and
     material evidence, the Board will not reinstate an appeal once it had been
     withdrawn.    Cason v. Department of the Army, 118 M.S.P.R. 58, ¶ 5 (2012).
     However, a relinquishment of one’s right to appeal to the Board must be by clear,
     unequivocal, and decisive action. Id.
¶7         Here, the appellant did not take any affirmative step to inform the
     administrative judge of a desire to withdraw his appeal.           Rather, he failed to

     2
       Pursuant to the Board’s Delegations Manual at § 2.3.5.1, the Office of the Clerk of the
     Board has delegated authority to grant a petitioner’s request to withdraw his petition for
     review. Vice Chairman Cathy A. Harris, Member Raymond A. Limon and former
     Member Tristan L. Leavitt issued a policy effective June 28, 2022, stating that the
     Clerk may now exercise the delegated authority to grant a withdrawal of a petition for
     review when requested by a petitioner if there is no apparent untimeliness of the
     petition and if no other party objects to the withdrawal .
                                                                                       4

     respond to the administrative judge’s order to clarify whether he wished to
     withdraw his appeal or not. While the appellant’s noncompliance with that order
     might have warranted a sanction under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.43, his silence did not
     amount to a clear, unequivocal, and decisive action to relinqui sh his appeal right.
     See Lopez v. Department of the Interior, 94 M.S.P.R. 393, ¶ 6 (2003) (concluding
     that when the appellant was pro se, there was no record of her request to
     withdraw her appeal, and she asserted on review that she did not intend to
     withdraw her appeal, she did not clearly, unequivocally, and decisively withdraw
     her appeal); Spencer v. Railroad Retirement Board, 93 M.S.P.R. 80, ¶ 5 (2002)
     (same). Furthermore, as discussed above, the appellant has not clearly indicated
     that he wishes to withdraw his petition for review of the initial decision.
     Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal.

                                          ORDER
¶8        For the reasons discussed above, we vacate the initial decision and remand
     this case to the regional office for further adjudication in accordance with this
     Remand Order.

     FOR THE BOARD:                                    /s/ for
                                               Jennifer Everling
                                               Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.