The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
LUPE I. RODRIGUEZ, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, PH-0845-17-0402-I-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: June 28, 2023
MANAGEMENT,
Agency.
THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL
Lupe I. Rodriguez, Stratford, Connecticut, pro se.
Carla Robinson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
REMAND ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we
GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
REMAND the case to the New York Field Office for further adjudication in
accordance with this Remand Order.
¶2 The appellant appealed a purported determination by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) that she was not entitled to a waiver of an
overpayment due to financial hardship. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. The
administrative judge ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument
establishing jurisdiction and informed her that she should provide OPM’s final
decision on the matter, if she had it. IAF, Tab 3. The appellant failed to provide
such a final decision, and OPM asserted that it was unable to locate any records
concerning the appellant. IAF, Tabs 5-7. Because the appellant failed to
establish that OPM had issued a final decision, the administrative judge dismissed
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision.
¶3 On review, the appellant asserts that she is entitled to a waiver because of
medical and financial hardship. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. She
attaches proof of various communications she had with OPM and evidence
pertaining to her medical conditions. Id. In its response, OPM asserts that it has
located the appellant’s retirement file and determined that it issued her a final
decision. PFR File, Tab 5. OPM states that it would not object to the Board
vacating the initial decision and remanding the appeal for a decision on the
merits. Id. OPM has not submitted its final decision into the record; however,
based on OPM’s representations, we find it appropriate to vacate the initial
decision and remand the case for further adjudication. We make no findings at
this time on the merits of the appellant’s arguments.
3
ORDER
¶4 For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the New York Field
Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Orde r.
FOR THE BOARD: /s/ for
Jennifer Everling
Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.