Opinion

Patrick Bryant v. Office of Personnel Management

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Oct 2, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 30.7%

stating that under the general rule of statutory construction, when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, that language is controlling, absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary

How later courts described this case

stating that under the general rule of statutory construction, when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, that language is controlling, absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

PATRICK BRYANT, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, NY-0842-20-0233-I-1

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: October 2, 2024

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Patrick Bryant , Selden, New York, pro se.

Michael Shipley , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

Henry J. Kerner, Member

FINAL ORDER

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review

of the initial decision, which vacated and remanded its final decision regarding

the calculation of the appellant’s Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS)

disability retirement annuity benefits. For the reasons discussed herein, we

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

GRANT OPM’s petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and AFFIRM

OPM’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

On January 7, 2007, OPM approved the appellant’s application for

disability retirement under FERS. Bryant v. Office of Personnel Management,

MSPB Docket No. NY-0842-20-0233-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9

at 6, 19. Thereafter, on September 7, 2010, the appellant was found eligible for

social security disability benefits retroactive to January 5, 2007. Bryant v. Office

of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-0845-14-0268-I-1, Initial

Appeal File (0268 IAF), Tab 12 at 17-21. Approximately 3 years later, in

October 2013, OPM learned that the appellant had been receiving social security

benefits. 0268 IAF, Tab 9 at 35. Accordingly, effective November 1, 2013, OPM

began to reduce the appellant’s monthly FERS disability annuity payments to

offset his social security benefits. 2 Id. at 12. On numerous occasions thereafter,

the appellant contacted OPM and inquired as to how it was calculating his

monthly FERS disability annuity benefits. E.g., IAF, Tab 12 at 26.

On August 13, 2019, OPM issued an initial decision explaining how it had

computed the appellant’s monthly benefits. IAF, Tab 9 at 17-18. In this

decision, OPM explained that, for the first 12 months following the appellant’s

retirement, it had calculated his monthly annuity by first taking 60% of his

average salary and dividing it by 12. Id. at 17. It indicated that it had then offset

Because the appellant concurrently received social security benefits and FERS

disability annuity benefits absent any offset from July 1, 2007, through September 30,

2013, on March 25, 2014, OPM issued a final decision concluding that the appellant had

been overpaid in the amount of $81,155.00 and that he was not entitled to a waiver of

the overpayment. 0268 IAF, Tab 9 at 6-10. The appellant appealed OPM’s March 25,

2014 final decision to the Board, and on December 9, 2015, the administrative judge

assigned to the matter issued an initial decision reversing OPM’s final decision,

concluding that the appellant was entitled to a waiver of the overpayment due to

financial hardship. Bryant v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-

0845-14-0268-I-1, Initial Decision at 2, 13-19 (Dec. 9, 2015). OPM did not file a

petition for review of this initial decision.

this amount by 100% of the appellant’s monthly social security benefits. Id.

OPM explained that, following this initial year, it had calculated the appellant’s

monthly annuity by first taking 40% of his average salary and dividing by 12. Id.

It had then offset this amount by 60% of the appellant’s monthly social security

benefits. Id. The decision referenced, but did not substantively discuss, the

application of a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to these calculations. Id.

at 17-18.

The appellant requested reconsideration of OPM’s August 13, 2019

decision, and on July 24, 2020, OPM issued a final decision concluding that the

appellant’s “FERS annuity was correctly computed” and that he had received “the

correct COLAs applied to [his] monthly annuity.” 3 IAF, Tab 9 at 6-8. OPM

explained that it did not contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) “to get

the COLA amount applied to [an annuitant’s social security] benefit[s],” and

instead had applied only the “FERS COLA” in calculating the appellant’s

annuity. Id. at 7. On September 4, 2020, 4 the appellant appealed OPM’s final

decision to the Board, arguing that OPM had miscalculated his FERS annuity

benefits from 2017 through 2020 by deliberately applying the incorrect COLA, in

violation of 5 C.F.R. § 841.703(e)(3). IAF, Tab 1 at 4-5.

The appellant filed a previous appeal with the Board of OPM’s August 19, 2019

decision, which was subsequently dismissed by the administrative judge assigned to the

matter for lack of jurisdiction because OPM had not yet issued a final decision. Bryant

v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-0845-20-0099-I-1, Initial

Decision at 1-2 (Apr. 16, 2020).

OPM’s July 24, 2020 final decision explained that the appellant had the right to file a

Board appeal within 30 calendar days from the date of its decision, or 30 days from the

appellant’s receipt of the decision, whichever was later. IAF, Tab 9 at 8. On his initial

appeal form, the appellant indicated that he had not received OPM’s final decision until

August 5, 2020. IAF, Tab 1 at 4. He also provided the envelope in which OPM’s final

decision was sent, which seemingly indicated that someone had signed for and

acknowledged receipt of the same on “8/5/20.” Id. at 12. The agency did not challenge

the appellant’s assertion that he did not receive OPM’s decision until August 5, 2020;

accordingly, we find that the appellant’s Board appeal was timely filed.

Following a telephonic hearing on the matter, 5 the administrative judge

issued an initial decision vacating OPM’s final decision and remanding the matter

for recalculation of the appellant’s annuity payments. IAF, Tab 18, Initial

Decision (ID) at 1, 3. In so doing, she reasoned that “[g]iven OPM’s statement

that it does not obtain from SSA the COLA amount applied to the social security

benefit,” OPM had calculated the appellant’s monthly annuity benefits absent all

“necessary information.” ID at 3. Accordingly, she ordered OPM to recalculate

the appellant’s disability annuity for 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, and to issue a

new decision. Id.

The agency has filed a petition for review, and the appellant has filed a

response. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3. In its petition, the agency

argues that its calculation of the appellant’s annuity benefits comports with

applicable statutes, regulations, and case law. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-25.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

In the initial decision, the administrative judge did not identify any

particular mathematical error with OPM’s calculation of the appellant’s FERS

disability retirement annuity benefits; rather, she concluded that OPM’s

admission that it had not considered the COLA prescribed by SSA necessarily

rendered OPM’s calculations incorrect. ID at 3. We disagree.

The computation of a FERS disability annuity is governed by 5 U.S.C.

§ 8452. Leighton v. Office of Personnel Management, 529 F.3d 1071, 1073 (Fed.

Cir. 2008). This statutory provision provides, in relevant part, that for any month

in which an annuitant is entitled to both a FERS disability annuity and a disability

insurance benefit under section 223 of the Social Security Act, i.e., social security

disability benefits, the annuitant’s FERS disability annuity must be reduced by

The recording of the March 5, 2021 telephonic hearing was irretrievably lost due to a

technical error. Petition for Review File, Tab 4 at 1. However, we find that there are

no material facts in dispute and that the dispositive issue in this matter is a question of

law. Thus, the loss of the hearing recording is not material to the outcome of this

appeal; indeed, neither party has raised any issues associated with the loss of the same.

the annuitant’s “assumed disability insurance benefit.” 5 U.S.C. § 8452(a)(2)(A).

The statute defines “assumed disability insurance benefit” as the appellant’s

social security disability insurance benefit as adjusted by 5 U.S.C. § 8462(b), i.e.,

the FERS COLA. 5 U.S.C. § 8452(a)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(II). Therefore, by the plain

language of the statute, an annuitant’s social security benefits must be adjusted by

the FERS COLA, and thus, the COLA prescribed by SSA is not relevant to the

calculation. Id.; see Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. ,

447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980) (stating that under the general rule of statutory

construction, when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, that

language is controlling, absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the

contrary).

Therefore, to the extent that the administrative judge agreed with the

appellant that OPM violated 5 C.F.R. § 841.703(e)(3) in not considering the

COLA prescribed by SSA, such finding is contrary to the plain reading of the

statute. ID at 3. Furthermore, although 5 C.F.R. § 841.703(e)(3) provides that

“[a]fter the first year [of disability retirement under FERS] both the disability

benefit and the social security offset (if any) are increased by COLAs,” the

provision does not specify which COLA should be applied to an annuitant’s

social security benefits for purposes of a FERS disability annuity computation.

However, another regulatory provision, 5 C.F.R. § 844.302, explicitly provides

that, in computing the FERS disability annuity for individuals under the age of

62, social security disability insurance benefits shall be “[a]djusted by each

cost-of-living increase effective under 5 U.S.C. 8462(b).” 5 C.F.R.

§ 844.302(a)(3); ID at 3.

We therefore disagree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that

OPM’s admission that it did not “obtain from SSA the COLA amount applied to

the social security benefit” necessarily rendered its calculations incorrect, ID at 3,

and we find that the appellant failed to identify any error with OPM’s

computation of his FERS disability annuity benefits, 6 IAF, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 9

at 17-20; PFR File, Tab 1 at 19-25. Accordingly, we vacate the initial decision,

and we affirm OPM’s final decision.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By

statute, the nature of 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 situation 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

During the pendency of his appeal before the administrative judge, the appellant filed

a motion wherein he sought “to add the 2021 year” to his Board appeal. IAF, Tab 13

at 4. The initial decision, however, did not address this motion. The Board typically

has jurisdiction over OPM determinations affecting an appellant’s rights under FERS

only after OPM has issued a final decision on the matter. McNeese v. Office of

Personnel Management, 61 M.S.P.R. 70, 73-74, aff’d, 40 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

(Table). Here, OPM’s final decision did not address the appellant’s 2021 disability

annuity payments, IAF, Tab 9 at 6-8; thus, we find that the appellant’s challenges

thereto are outside the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction. However, the appellant’s

arguments pertaining to his 2021 annuity payments appear to be the same as those

regarding his 2017-2020 payments, and therefore, his arguments regarding his 2021

annuity benefits have been implicitly addressed in this order. IAF, Tab 13 at 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 indicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

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

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.

(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 security. 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 .

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 competent jurisdiction. 8 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).

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.

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