Jones v. Office of Personnel Management ( 2004 )

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
04-3371
WESLEY C. JONES,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: December 17, 2004
__________________________
Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Wesley C. Jones, requests that this court review a final decision
of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) denying his petition for review.
Jones v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Docket No. AT844E030516-I-1 (June 25, 2004) (“Jones
II”). Because the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
In its initial decision, the Board denied Mr. Jones’s request for disability annuity
benefits under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”). The Board’s
administrative judge denied the petitioner FERS benefits because the record in this
case establishes that the petitioner only worked as an employee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs for three and one half months. Jones v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Docket
No. AT844E030516-I-1, slip op. at 1 (June 2, 2003) (“Jones I”). Under the FERS
statute, an employee must have completed at least 18 months of service in order to
qualify for disability retirement benefits. 5 U.S.C. § 8451(a)(1)(A) (2004). Because the
petitioner could not establish that he had served at least 18 months in the Department
of Veterans Affairs, his appeal from the Office of Personnel Management’s denial of
disability benefits was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Jones I, at 1.
The full Board denied the petitioner’s petition for review of the administrative
judge’s initial decision because no new evidence that had been previously unavailable
was presented to the Board. Jones II, at 1.
We can only set aside a Board decision if it is:
1. arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law;
2. obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or
regulation having been followed; or
3. unsupported by substantial evidence.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2004).
In his petition to this court, Mr. Jones does not allege that the Board’s decision is
covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1)-(2). To the extent that he argues that the Board’s
decision is not supported by substantial evidence, we disagree. The evidence in the
record clearly establishes that Mr. Jones began his employment at the Department of
Veterans Affairs on November 22, 1987 and resigned on March 9, 1988. Accordingly,
the Board’s decision is affirmed.
04-3371 2