Court Opinion

ID: 9965774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 15:00:51.042856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:39.128202
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SHARLENE JONES-BUSH,                            DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         SF-0752-22-0525-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                         DATE: May 2, 2024
            Agency.

             THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Andrew R. Young , Esquire, and Jacquelyn Trevino , Esquire, Houston,
        Texas, for the appellant.

      David L. Mannix , Falls Church, Virginia, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                REMAND ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her involuntary retirement appeal for lack of jurisdiction.         For the
reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review,
VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND the case to the Western Regional
Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                    BACKGROUND
           The appellant started her employment with the agency on March 24, 1992,
in a nonappropriated fund instrumentality (NAFI) position. Initial Appeal File
(IAF), Tab 4 at 5, Tab 8 at 10.         On July 25, 1993, she was appointed to a
career-conditional position as a GS-3 Information Receptionist.           IAF, Tab 8
at 38. 2
           On March 31, 2022, she retired from the agency as a GS-7 Clinical Staff
Services Assistant. Id. at 50. According to the appellant, prior to her retirement,
an agency Human Resources (HR) Specialist verified that she had 30 years of
Federal service, had reached the minimum retirement age, and was allowed to
retire on March 31, 2022. IAF, Tab 4 at 5, 44, 69-70, 83-88. The appellant had
also received a Certificate of Service, a Presidential Letter of Appreciation, a
retirement flag, and a 30-year pin recognizing her 30 years of Federal service. Id.
at 5-6, 56.       Therefore, believing she had 30 years of creditable service, the
appellant submitted her retirement application to the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) in November 2021, retiring on March 31, 2022.                Id. at 8;
IAF, Tab 8 at 50.        However, in July 2022, OPM informed the appellant that
she only had 28 years of creditable service, and therefore, she would receive an
age reduction penalty and would lose her annuity supplement because she had not
reached 30 years of creditable service. 3 IAF, Tab 4 at 8, 62.
           The appellant then filed this involuntary retirement appeal, alleging that
she relied on the agency’s misrepresentation that she had reached the minimum
age and had 30 years of creditable Federal service.              IAF, Tab 1.       The
administrative judge issued a jurisdictional order informing the appellant that the
Board may not have jurisdiction over her involuntary retirement claim, setting

2
  The appellant does not dispute the veracity of the Standard Form 50s submitted by the
agency, and thus we rely on them for the limited purpose of establishing the dates of
relevant personnel actions.
3
 It appears that the appellant was not vested in her NAFI service. IAF, Tab 4 at 32-33,
51-53.
                                                                                     3

forth the applicable legal standard, and providing her with an opportunity to
present evidence or argument to establish a nonfrivolous allegation of
jurisdiction.   IAF, Tab 3.    The appellant responded to the order, as did the
agency. IAF, Tabs 4, 8.
      Without holding a hearing, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.     IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision (ID).         Citing to a
declaration submitted by the agency, the administrative judge determined that, in
order to find a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction, he would be required to
“assume someone in the local command human resources office provided advice
contrary to [the Assistant Department Head’s] assertion that her office does not
verify NAFI service, and require that [he] assume the appellant relied on that
advice.”    ID at 8-9.    The administrative judge then found that, without a
declaration or affidavit from the appellant, 4 she had failed to nonfrivolously
allege that her belief that she had 30 years of creditable service was the result of
the agency’s misrepresentation. ID at 9. Thus, he found that she did not make a
nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction sufficient to support a hearing request. Id.
      The appellant has filed a petition for review, reiterating that she was misled
by the agency because it informed her that she could retire on March 31, 2022,
because she had reached the minimum retirement age and had 30 years of
creditable service. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency responded
in opposition to the appellant’s petition for review. PFR File, Tab 3.

                 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      An employee-initiated action, such as retirement, is presumed to be
voluntary, and thus outside the Board’s jurisdiction. Salazar v. Department of the
Army, 115 M.S.P.R. 296, ¶ 9 (2010).         However, an involuntary retirement is
tantamount to a removal and, accordingly, is appealable to the Board. Id. The

4
 The appellant responded to the administrative judge’s jurisdictional order through her
designated representative, but did not include an affidavit or declaration in her
submission. IAF, Tab 4.
                                                                                  4

presumption that a retirement is voluntary can be rebutted by evidence showing
that the retirement was the result of agency misrepresentation, coercion, or
duress. Id. When, as here, there is a claim that an involuntary action resulted
from misinformation, an appellant must show that: (1) the agency made
misleading statements; and (2) the appellant reasonably relied on the
misinformation to her detriment.     Id.   The appellant need not show that the
agency was intentionally misleading. Id.; Covington v. Department of Health &
Human Services, 750 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
      A hearing is required with respect to jurisdictional questions only if the
appellant makes a nonfrivolous allegation that, if proved, would establish Board
jurisdiction. Brown v. Department of Defense, 109 M.S.P.R. 493, ¶ 13 (2008).
The question here, therefore, is whether the appellant made a nonfrivolous
allegation of an involuntary retirement so as to entitle her to a jurisdictional
hearing. A nonfrivolous allegation is an allegation of “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Hessami v. Merit
Systems Protection Board, 979 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In assessing
whether an appellant has made a nonfrivolous allegation, an administrative judge
may consider the agency’s documentary submissions.         Ferdon v. U.S. Postal
Service, 60 M.S.P.R. 325, 329 (1994). However, to the extent that the agency’s
evidence merely contradicts the appellant’s otherwise adequate prima facie
showing of jurisdiction, the administrative judge may not weigh evidence or
resolve conflicting assertions of the parties, and the agency’s evidence may not be
dispositive. Id.
      The administrative judge improperly weighed the evidence in finding that
the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction. ID at 9.
The factual background set forth by the administrative judge relies almost solely
on the documents provided by the agency.        ID at 4-6.    Furthermore, in his
analysis, he cited exclusively to the agency’s documentation, and used these
documents to resolve disputes of fact, for example, whether it was the agency that
                                                                                       5

informed the appellant that she had 30 years of creditable service. ID at 7-9. The
administrative judge impermissibly gave more weight to the agency’s evidence
than the appellant’s evidence, finding that, even though she had responded to his
jurisdictional order, because she did not submit a declaration or affidavit, he
could not find that she had made a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction.          Id.
However, an appellant is not required to submit a declaration or affidavit at the
jurisdictional stage. See Hessami, 979 F.3d at 1367 (explaining that the appellant
need only submit facially sufficient allegations); see also Edem v. Department of
Commerce, 64 M.S.P.R. 501, 505 (1994) (explaining that there is no requirement
that statements be sworn in order to establish entitlement to a jurisdictional
hearing). An appellant need only submit facially sufficient allegations which,
taken as true, state a claim plausible on its face.
      Here,    the   appellant    alleged   that      she   relied   on   the   agency’s
misrepresentation of her creditable service and that she unwittingly retired before
she reached 30 years of creditable service, thus being subjected to a reduced
annuity. IAF, Tab 4 at 5-9. She believed that she had 30 years of creditable
service not only based on her communications with the agency, but also because
she had received a Certificate of Service, a Presidential Letter of Appreciation, a
retirement flag, and a 30-year pin commemorating 30 years of service. Id.; PFR
File, Tab 1 at 4-11. Furthermore, while the appellant did not attach a declaration
or affidavit to her jurisdictional response, she did attach multiple emails from the
agency regarding her retirement application seemingly indicating that there was
some misunderstanding regarding her creditable years of service.            IAF, Tab 4
at 13-102.
      Therefore, based on the appellant’s submissions, we find that she made
factually sufficient allegations which, if taken as true, could show that the agency
made misrepresentations regarding her creditable years of service which she
reasonably relied on to her detriment.        See Lawson v. U.S. Postal Service,
68 M.S.P.R. 345, 352-53 (1995) (finding that the appellant’s allegation that he
                                                                                  6

based his decision to retire on the agency’s offer of a discontinued service
annuity, when he was not eligible for the discontinued service annuity, was
sufficient to establish a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction); Tiffany v.
Department of the Treasury, 48 M.S.P.R. 334, 337-38 (1991) (finding that an
appellant’s allegation that she based her decision to retire on the agency
incorrectly stating that she could not avoid a public pension offset was sufficient
to establish a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction). As such, we conclude that
the appellant has made a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction and is
entitled to a jurisdictional hearing. See Ferdon, 60 M.S.P.R. at 329.

                                     ORDER
      For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Western
Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.