Opinion

Houston Swain v. Office of Personnel Management

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Nov 13, 2023
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

HOUSTON E. SWAIN, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, SF-0845-21-0484-B-1

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: November 13, 2023

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Houston E. Swain , Acton, California, pro se.

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

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

dismissed his Federal Employees’ Retirement System annuity overpayment appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. On petition for review, the appellant reasserts that the

Board retains jurisdiction because the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

has not restored him to the status quo ante. Remand Petition for Review (RPFR)

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

File, Tab 1 at 5. 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.

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).

¶2 On review, the appellant does not dispute OPM’s assertion that on

October 20, 2021, it refunded the appellant the $1,043.72 that it withheld from his

annuity payments in August and September 2021 to recoup his alleged $18,787.00

overpayment. RPFR, Tab 1; Remand File (RF), Tab 7 at 8-9, 49. Instead, he

explains on review, as he did below, that his allegation that OPM withheld

$5,827.00 was a mistake. RPFR, Tab 1 at 6; RF, Tab 6 at 3-6. Accordingly, we

find that OPM has completely rescinded its reconsideration decision and restored

the appellant to the status quo ante, thus divesting the Board of jurisdiction over

the instant appeal.

¶3 The appellant also argues that the Board has jurisdiction because “OPM’s

delays and errors significantly violated [his] legal rights for the past 12 years.”

RPFR File, Tab 1 at 10. Specifically, he asserts that he has experienced multiple

delays and errors with OPM’s handling of his disability retirement and believes

OPM will further delay issuing a final determination. Id. at 4, 10-11.

¶4 We have considered the appellant’s arguments; however, the Board lacks

the authority to order OPM to process a request for reconsideration within a

certain period of time. See McNeese v. Office of Personnel Management,

61 M.S.P.R. 70, 74-75, aff’d, 40 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Table). Further, the

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given

jurisdiction by statute or regulation, and the Board is without authority to broaden

or narrow its appellate jurisdiction through the exercise of inherent power. Id.

at 73. In general, the Board has jurisdiction over OPM determinations affecting

an appellant’s rights or interests under the retirement system only after OPM has

issued a final decision; that is, a reconsideration decision. Id. at 73-74. The

Board has recognized limited exceptions to this general rule when OPM has, in

effect, refused to issue a reconsideration decision. Id. at 74; see, e.g., Okello v.

Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R. 498, ¶ 15 (2014) (finding that

OPM’s failure to act for 6 years constituted an appealable administrative action as

the appellant diligently sought a final decision during that time period to no

avail); Garcia v. Office of Personnel Management, 31 M.S.P.R. 160, 161 (1986)

(stating that the Board may assert jurisdiction over a retirement appeal in the

absence of a reconsideration decision when OPM improperly fails to respond to

the appellant’s repeated requests for a decision on his retirement application).

¶5 Under the present circumstances, we find that such an exception does not

apply. See McNeese, 61 M.S.P.R. at 71-74 (finding a 16-month delay by OPM in

issuing a reconsideration decision insufficient to confer Board jurisdiction).

However, after OPM issues a new reconsideration decision, the appellant may file

a new appeal with the appropriate Board regional office if he disagrees with that

decision. Any future appeal must be filed within the time limits set forth in the

Board’s regulations. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b). Alternatively, he may refile the

appeal if he believes that OPM refuses to issue such a decision.

¶6 Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision, dismissing the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2

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

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:

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.

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. 3 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