The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
PATRICIA A. EADDY, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, DC-0831-20-0558-I-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: July 26, 2024
MANAGEMENT,
Agency.
THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Patricia A. Eaddy , Temple Hills, Maryland, pro se.
Karla W. Yeakle and Maureen Ann Kersey , Washington, D.C., for the
agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman
Henry J. Kerner, Member*
*Member Kerner did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.
REMAND ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed for lack of Board jurisdiction her appeal of the initial decision of the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denying her challenge to her Civil
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
Service Retirement System (CSRS) disability annuity computation. For the
reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review,
VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND the case to the regional office for
further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The appellant filed an appeal challenging what she described as a number
of errors related to her Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) disability
annuity computation. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1-9. The appellant
provided several attachments with her initial appeal, including an initial decision
from OPM dated January 21, 2020, denying her request challenging her CSRS
annuity computation. See id. at 47. The administrative judge issued an
acknowledgment order stating that the Board may not have jurisdiction over her
appeal, noting that the appellant had not provided evidence demonstrating that
OPM had issued a final or reconsideration decision regarding her claim. IAF,
Tab 2 at 2-3. Consequently, the administrative judge ordered the appellant to
provide evidence and argument establishing Board jurisdiction over her appeal,
and provided the agency with the opportunity to file a response to the appellant’s
jurisdictional filing. IAF, Tab 2 at 2-3. Both the appellant and the agency failed
to respond to the order. The administrative judge subsequently issued an initial
decision, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant
failed to show that OPM had issued a reconsideration decision in her case. IAF,
Tab 3, Initial Decision (ID).
The appellant timely filed a petition for review alleging that the
administrative judge misidentified her former employing agency and that she had
provided a copy of OPM’s reconsideration decision with her initial appeal filing,
and restating her claim that there are uncorrected errors in her retirement record.
Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3 at 1-2. The appellant also provided a copy
of a reconsideration decision from OPM dated April 30, 2020, regarding her
3
challenge to her CSRS annuity computation. Id. at 4-6. The agency filed a
response requesting that the petition for review be denied, or in the alternative,
that the appeal be remanded to the regional office for further adjudication. PFR
File, Tab 6 at 4-5. The appellant did not file a reply to the agency’s response.
The Board generally has jurisdiction to review an OPM determination
affecting an appellant’s rights or interests under a retirement system only after
OPM issues a final or reconsideration decision. Tatum v. Office of Personnel
Management, 82 M.S.P.R. 96, ¶ 7 (1999); see 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1); 5 C.F.R.
§ 831.110. An appellant bears the burden of establishing Board jurisdiction over
an appeal contesting an OPM reconsideration decision by preponderant evidence. 2
Miller v. Office of Personnel Management, 123 M.S.P.R. 68, ¶ 7 (2015); 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A).
Despite the appellant’s assertion on review that she provided a copy of
OPM’s reconsideration decision with her initial appeal, see PFR File, Tab 3
at 1-2, at the time the appellant filed this appeal OPM had not yet issued a
reconsideration decision, see IAF, Tab 1 at 1. However, 9 days after the
appellant filed her Board appeal, OPM issued its April 30, 2020 reconsideration
decision, a copy of which the appellant provided with her petition for review. See
PFR File, Tab 3 at 4. Thus, although the appeal was premature at the time the
appellant filed it, the appeal had become ripe for adjudication after OPM issued
its reconsideration decision, before the administrative judge issued the initial
decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id.; ID at 1, 3. The
issue of jurisdiction is always before the Board and may be raised at any time.
Stoglin v. Department of the Air Force, 123 M.S.P.R. 163, ¶ 7 (2015), aff’d,
640 F. App’x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in circumstances where an
appeal was premature when it was filed but became ripe while pending with the
Board, the Board’s practice is to adjudicate such appeals. See Simnitt v.
2
Preponderant evidence is the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person,
considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested
fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
4
Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 313, ¶ 9 (2010) (noting that the
Board will adjudicate an appeal that was premature when it was filed but became
ripe while pending with the Board); Becker v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
112 M.S.P.R. 516, ¶ 7 (2009) (same). Although the appellant failed to respond to
the administrative judge’s May 5, 2020 acknowledgment order, OPM had issued a
reconsideration decision at the time the acknowledgment order was issued, and
therefore this appeal was within the Board’s jurisdiction and ripe for adjudication
at that time.
ORDER
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: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.