The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
IRIS EDWARDS, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, DC-0839-16-0497-I-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: October 24, 2022
MANAGEMENT,
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Iris Edwards, Accokeek, Maryland, pro se.
Karla W. Yeakle, Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
Tristan L. Leavitt, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
denied her request for corrective action under the Federal Erroneous Retirement
Coverage Corrections Act (FERCCA). Generally, we grant petitions such as this
one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 judg es 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
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 t he petitioner
has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial
decision, except as MODIFIED to clarify the definition of “creditable civilian
service” for purposes of determining whether an employee is excluded from
automatic coverage under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS).
BACKGROUND
¶2 From November 29, 1982, to August 14, 1985, the appellant was employed
in a Federal position covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 8, 26. From 1986 to 1991, she held a series of
seven nonconsecutive temporary appointments with various Federal agencies,
most of which lasted between 2 and 4 months, each with breaks of more than
4 days between each appointment. Id. at 8. During her temporary appointments,
the appellant was placed under Federal Insurance Contributions Act coverage
only. Id. at 8, 11-23. On March 23, 1992, the appellant received a
career-conditional appointment and was placed under FERS coverage. Id. The
appellant disagreed with her retirement plan coverage and sought corrective
action under FERCCA. Id. at 6. In a final decision dated March 15, 2016, the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) found that the appellant was properly
covered by FERS and denied her request for corrective action. Id.
3
¶3 The appellant appealed OPM’s final decision to the Board. IAF, Tab 1.
After holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the administrative judge issued
an initial decision finding that the appellant was properly placed under FERS
coverage when she was rehired in 1992 because she did not have 5 years of prior
creditable civilian service that would exclude her from FERS coverage. IAF,
Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID). Accordingly, the administrative judge denied the
appellant’s request for corrective action under FERCCA and affirmed OPM’s
final decision. ID at 4-5.
¶4 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, arg uing
that her service in the temporary positions is creditable, that she meets the 5-year
requirement for exclusion from FERS, and that she should have been placed
under CSRS coverage upon her rehire in 1992. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
Tab 1. OPM has submitted a response to the appellant’s petition for review,
conceding that her service in temporary positions is creditable but maintaining
that her total creditable service is still fewer than 5 years. PFR File, Tab 4.
ANALYSIS
¶5 An employee who has been placed under the wrong retirement system for a
period of 3 or more years after December 31, 1986, may seek relief under
FERCCA and may be entitled to various forms of relief, including a choice of
retirement plans. FERCCA, Pub. L. No. 106-265, §§ 2001-2401, 114 Stat. 762,
770-86 (2000) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 8331 note); see Archer v. Office of
Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R. 68, ¶ 6 (2013); 5 C.F.R. §§ 839.101(b),
839.201. Generally, an employee who previously has not been covered by FERS
and who is rehired, transferred, or converted after December 31, 1986, is
automatically subject to FERS unless she meets the “5-year test.” Office of
Personnel Management, CSRS and FERS Handbook for Personnel and Payroll
Offices (Handbook), Ch. C010 – Coverage, Sections 10A1.1-2(I), 10A1.3-4(B),
(Apr. 1998), https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications-forms/
4
csrsfers-handbook/ (last visited Oct. 24, 2022); see 5 U.S.C. § 8402(b)(2)(A);
5 C.F.R. § 842.104(c). To satisfy the 5-year test, an employee must meet one of
the following conditions: (1) she had 5 years of creditable civilian service as of
December 31, 1986; or (2) she had a break in service of more than 3 days ending
after 1986, she had any amount of past coverage under CSRS or the Foreign
Service Retirement System, and she had 5 years of creditable civilian service as
of the break in service. Handbook, Sections 10A1.1-2(I), 10A1.3-4(B).
¶6 Here, the undisputed evidence reflects that the appellant had a total of
4 years, 3 months, and 17 days of Federal service prior to her 1992 appointment. 2
IAF, Tab 4 at 8. Because she did not have at least 5 years of prior service at the
time of her appointment in 1992, she cannot satisfy the 5-year test and, therefore,
did not qualify for exclusion from automatic FERS coverage. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 8402(b)(2)(A); 5 C.F.R. § 842.104(c). Accordingly, we agree with the
administrative judge’s determination that the appellant was properly placed under
FERS coverage upon her rehire in 1992 and that she is not entitled to corrective
action under FERCCA.
¶7 Finally, in the initial decision, the administrative judge found that the
appellant was not in CSRS-covered positions during her temporary appointments
and, therefore, that those appointments could not be counted toward the 5 -year
requirement. ID at 3-4. For purposes of the 5-year test, however, “creditable
civilian service” can include “all potentially creditable service, such as service
performed under another retirement system, which would be creditable if any
necessary deposit were made.” Handbook, Section 10A1.1-2(A); see 5 U.S.C.
§ 8402(b)(2)(A)-(B). Accordingly, we modify the initial decision to clarify that it
is not necessary that a particular period of service be covered by CSRS to be
2
Although the appellant contends that her total service prior to 1992 amounts to more
than 8 years, IAF, Tab 8 at 3, she does not challenge the accuracy of OPM’s FERCCA
Service History Worksheet, which sets forth her prior dates of employment and reflects
periods of service prior to her 1992 appointment that total 4 years, 3 months, and
17 days. IAF, Tab 4 at 8.
5
creditable civilian service in this context. The administrative judge’s error,
though, does not affect the outcome of this appeal and provides no basis to
reverse the initial decision because the appellant cannot satisfy the 5-year test,
even if all of her prior service is found to be “creditable civilian service.” See
Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984).
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. 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 an d
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
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.
3
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.
6
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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a
7
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
8
(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. 4 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).
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
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.
4
The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of cer tain
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.
9
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.
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
FOR THE BOARD: /s/ for
Jennifer Everling
Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.