Opinion

Michael E Demartino v. Office of Personnel Management

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Nov 18, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 33.0%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MICHAEL E. DEMARTINO, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, NY-0841-21-0083-I-1

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: November 18, 2024

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Michael E. Demartino , Staten Island, New York, pro se.

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

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

Henry J. Kerner, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) concluding that his Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS)

annuity supplement was correctly computed. On petition for review, the

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

appellant restates his argument that OPM should have calculated his FERS

annuity supplement payment amount based on the total career earnings figures

identified in detailed earnings reports from the Social Security Administration

and on Standard Form (SF) 50 and SF-3100 documents he submitted to OPM,

instead of based on the contribution figures provided to OPM by the appellant’s

former employing agencies. 2 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. 3

We note that in the initial decision, the administrative judge identified the amount the

appellant alleged he was owed for his FERS supplemental annuity payment was

“$1,288/month, which is equal to 62 ½ % of $2,077 (the Social Security

Administration’s (SSA) computation of his income at the age of 62).” Initial Appeal

File (IAF), Tab 17, Initial Decision (ID) at 11 (citing IAF, Tab 15, Hearing Compact

Disc (testimony of appellant’s representative); IAF, Tab 14). However, this appears to

be an inadvertent typographical error, as 62 ½ % of $2,077 is $1,2 9 8. The appellant

also identifies this calculation and the correct resulting amount in his correspondences

with OPM. IAF, Tab 9 at 125; see id. at 129 (identifying $2,077 as the amount of the

appellant’s estimated SSA benefits at retirement age). Nevertheless, this typographical

error is inadvertent, and this misstatement was harmless and did not affect the outcome

of the decision in any way. See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R.

281, 282 (1984) (finding that an adjudicatory error that was not prejudicial to a party’s

substantive rights provided no basis for reversal of an initial decision).

With respect to the differing FERS annuity supplement payment figures identified by

the appellant, OPM maintained below that the final monthly FERS annuity supplement

amount owed to the appellant is $1,191, and not the $1,180, $1,182, and $1,192 figures

identified in various OPM letters. See IAF, Tab 9 at 7. We take this opportunity to

Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,

which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4

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.

identify and clarify the source of the apparent confusion. It appears that OPM initially

determined that the appellant’s monthly FERS annuity supplement amount was $1,180,

but on July 19, 2019, OPM acknowledged that the correct figure was $1,182 and

retroactively repaid the appellant the underpayment difference. IAF, Tab 9 at 214.

Following a routine post-court order review of the appellant’s case, OPM issued a letter

dated December 23, 2019, stating that the appellant’s 1996 FERS contributions should

reflect a full year of contributions and that the appellant’s monthly annuity supplement

amount was corrected to $1,192, and the appellant was retroactively paid the difference.

IAF, Tab 9 at 171. However, the $1,192 figure in that letter appears to be a

typographical error by OPM, because in a letter dated that same day, OPM identified

the appellant’s corrected FERS annuity supplement amount as $1,191. See id. at 170.

Further, the $1,180 figure identified as the prior FERS annuity supplement amount also

appears to be a typographical error, as it represented the annuity supplement payment

amount prior to OPM’s July 19, 2019 letter acknowledging that the correct amount was

$1,182. Id. at 170-71; see id. at 214. This also comports with the amount of the

overpayment OPM issued, since $1,191 (the correct, updated annuity amount) minus

$1,182 (the correct, prior annuity amount) equals $9 per month, or $162 over the course

of the 18-month adjustment period identified in OPM’s December 23, 2019 letter. See

IAF, Tab 9 at 171.

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.

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

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. 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).

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