UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
OLLIE M. FUTRELL, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0841-18-0324-I-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: March 27, 2024 MANAGEMENT, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Ollie M. Futrell , Garland, Texas, pro se.
Karla W. Yeakle , Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which affirmed the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finding that she was not eligible to receive a deferred annuity under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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
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). The appellant was previously employed with the U.S. Army. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 12-22, Tab 7 at 16-23. She filed an application for deferred retirement under FERS, identifying periodic prior Federal service between 1979 and 1995. IAF, Tab 7 at 10-15. OPM denied the application, finding that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria based on her Federal service history. Id. at 8-9. OPM found that the appellant had less than 5 years of creditable civilian service, with approximately 1 year and 2 months of creditable service under FERS between November 1989 and January 1991, and approximately 2 years and 8 months of non-creditable service covered only under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) between January 1980 and September 1982. Id. She subsequently filed an appeal with the Board, asserting that she had more than 18 years of Federal service beginning in 1975. IAF, Tab 1 at 3-5. Following a telephonic hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s decision. IAF, Tab 13, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 6. 3
For the reasons set forth in the initial decision, the appellant has failed to show by preponderant evidence 2 that she is entitled to the FERS annuity she seeks. ID at 2-6; see Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel Management, 791 F.2d 138, 140-41 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Davis v. Office of Personnel Management, 104 M.S.P.R. 70, ¶ 7 (2006) (observing that the burden of proving entitlement to retirement benefits is on the applicant for benefits) . On review, the appellant submits for the first time earnings records from the Social Security Administration seemingly identifying additional Federal Service. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2-11. She also states for the first time on review that her Federal service began in high school under the “Ceda government program” in 1973. Id. at 1. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with a petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). Although the appellant suggests on review that she obtained this information from the Social Security Administration following the hearing after being “asked to provide further proof of [her] service,” she has not made such a showing or provided any explanation why she could not have obtained the records prior to the close of the record below. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. In any event, the appellant’s new evidence does not demonstrate that she is entitled to a deferred FERS annuity, and thus provides no basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s findings. See Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (stating that the Board will generally not grant a petition for review based on “new” evidence absent a showing that it is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision).
2 A preponderance of the evidence is that degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q). 4
The appellant’s purported new evidence does not demonstrate that she completed at least 5 years of civilian service creditable under FERS or that she paid the necessary FERS service deposit for any eligible non -deduction service performed prior to 1989. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2-11; ID at 2; see 5 U.S.C. § 8410; 5 C.F.R. §§ 842.203, 843.304(a)(1)-(2). As stated in the initial decision, the appellant made no assertion in the record below that she made a service deposit to obtain FERS credit for her FICA-covered service, and she makes no such contention on review. ID at 3; PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. Although the Social Security Administration earnings records the appellant submitted on review show earnings from various Department of Defense entities between 1979 and 1992, the records provide no information regarding the type of appointment held by the appellant, or whether the earnings were covered under FERS or the Civil Service Retirement System. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2-11. Therefore, the appellant’s new evidence does not alter the administrative judge’s well-reasoned finding that OPM correctly denied her request for a deferred annuity under FERS. ID at 5. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm the initial decision.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
OLLIE M. FUTRELL, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0841-18-0324-I-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: March 27, 2024 MANAGEMENT, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Ollie M. Futrell , Garland, Texas, pro se.
Karla W. Yeakle , Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman
FINAL ORDER
The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which affirmed the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finding that she was not eligible to receive a deferred annuity under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains 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 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
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). The appellant was previously employed with the U.S. Army. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 12-22, Tab 7 at 16-23. She filed an application for deferred retirement under FERS, identifying periodic prior Federal service between 1979 and 1995. IAF, Tab 7 at 10-15. OPM denied the application, finding that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria based on her Federal service history. Id. at 8-9. OPM found that the appellant had less than 5 years of creditable civilian service, with approximately 1 year and 2 months of creditable service under FERS between November 1989 and January 1991, and approximately 2 years and 8 months of non-creditable service covered only under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) between January 1980 and September 1982. Id. She subsequently filed an appeal with the Board, asserting that she had more than 18 years of Federal service beginning in 1975. IAF, Tab 1 at 3-5. Following a telephonic hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s decision. IAF, Tab 13, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 6. 3
For the reasons set forth in the initial decision, the appellant has failed to show by preponderant evidence 2 that she is entitled to the FERS annuity she seeks. ID at 2-6; see Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel Management, 791 F.2d 138, 140-41 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Davis v. Office of Personnel Management, 104 M.S.P.R. 70, ¶ 7 (2006) (observing that the burden of proving entitlement to retirement benefits is on the applicant for benefits) . On review, the appellant submits for the first time earnings records from the Social Security Administration seemingly identifying additional Federal Service. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2-11. She also states for the first time on review that her Federal service began in high school under the “Ceda government program” in 1973. Id. at 1. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with a petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). Although the appellant suggests on review that she obtained this information from the Social Security Administration following the hearing after being “asked to provide further proof of [her] service,” she has not made such a showing or provided any explanation why she could not have obtained the records prior to the close of the record below. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. In any event, the appellant’s new evidence does not demonstrate that she is entitled to a deferred FERS annuity, and thus provides no basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s findings. See Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (stating that the Board will generally not grant a petition for review based on “new” evidence absent a showing that it is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision).
2 A preponderance of the evidence is that degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q). 4
The appellant’s purported new evidence does not demonstrate that she completed at least 5 years of civilian service creditable under FERS or that she paid the necessary FERS service deposit for any eligible non -deduction service performed prior to 1989. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2-11; ID at 2; see 5 U.S.C. § 8410; 5 C.F.R. §§ 842.203, 843.304(a)(1)-(2). As stated in the initial decision, the appellant made no assertion in the record below that she made a service deposit to obtain FERS credit for her FICA-covered service, and she makes no such contention on review. ID at 3; PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. Although the Social Security Administration earnings records the appellant submitted on review show earnings from various Department of Defense entities between 1979 and 1992, the records provide no information regarding the type of appointment held by the appellant, or whether the earnings were covered under FERS or the Civil Service Retirement System. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2-11. Therefore, the appellant’s new evidence does not alter the administrative judge’s well-reasoned finding that OPM correctly denied her request for a deferred annuity under FERS. ID at 5. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm the initial decision.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3 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
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. 5
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: 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. 6
(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: 7
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. 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).
4 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. 8
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. 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: ______________________________ Gina K. Grippando Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.