Julian Lewallen v. Office of Personnel Management ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
    JULIAN LEE LEWALLEN,                            DOCKET NUMBER
    Appellant,                        DA-0842-18-0399-I-1
    v.
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: March 21, 2024
    MANAGEMENT,
    Agency.
    THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
    Julian Lee Lewallen , Fort Worth, Texas, pro se.
    Carla Robinson , 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
    dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to rescission of the
    reconsideration decision issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
    Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
    circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
    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    A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
    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).
    DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
    The appellant filed an appeal challenging OPM’s reconsideration decision
    regarding his creditable service for purposes of a retirement annuity.
    Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1, Tab 5 at 10-11. Specifically, he disputed OPM’s
    exclusion of his service in a temporary appointment from his total service
    computation. IAF, Tab 5 at 10-11. While this appeal was pending before the
    administrative judge, OPM indicated that it was rescinding its June 13, 2018
    reconsideration decision and remanding the appellant’s case to the Post
    Adjudication and/or Post-56 Military Service Credit Branch for further
    development. IAF, Tab 10 at 4. On August 6, 2018, the administrative judge
    issued an initial decision dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on
    OPM’s assertion that it was rescinding the reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 12,
    Initial Decision (ID) at 2.      The appellant filed a petition for review on
    September 10, 2018, alleging that OPM failed to timely notify him of his new
    annuity benefits or issue a new reconsideration decision, as applicable.
    3
    Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 2 at 4. 2 OPM has responded to the petition,
    and the appellant has replied. PFR File, Tabs 4 and 5.
    The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been
    given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.            Maddox v. Merit Systems
    Protection Board, 
    759 F.2d 9
    , 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, the Board has
    jurisdiction   over   retirement   issues   only   after   OPM    issues   a   final   or
    reconsideration decision.       McNeese v. Office of Personnel Management,
    
    61 M.S.P.R. 70
    , 73-74, aff’d per curiam, 
    40 F.3d 1250
     (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Table).
    The Board has held that, if OPM completely rescinds a reconsideration decision,
    the rescission divests the Board of jurisdiction over the appeal in which the
    reconsideration decision is at issue, and the appeal must be dismissed. Martin v.
    Office of Personnel Management, 
    119 M.S.P.R. 188
    , ¶ 8 (2013). The Board may
    assert jurisdiction over a retirement appeal in the absence of a reconsideration
    decision if OPM has refused or improperly failed to issue a final decision.
    McNeese, 61 M.S.P.R. at 74.
    Here, OPM indicated that it would rescind the reconsideration decision,
    send the appellant’s case to the appropriate department for further development,
    and, if applicable, issue a new final decision with appeal rights. IAF, Tab 10 at 4.
    The appellant filed his petition for review only a month after the initial decision
    was issued. Compare PFR File, Tab 2, with ID. Thus, there is no excessive delay
    by OPM that would indicate a refusal or failure to issue a final decision.             Cf.
    Easter v. Office of Personnel Management, 
    102 M.S.P.R. 568
    , ¶ 8 (2006) (finding
    that an 18-month delay by OPM in addressing the appellant’s application
    indicated a declination to adjudicate the application). This month -long delay is
    2
    Along with his petition for review, the appellant also submits documents that are part
    of the record below. Compare PFR File, Tab 2 at 6-11, with IAF, Tab 1 at 4-9. The
    documents submitted by the appellant do not constitute new and material evidence that
    was not previously available despite due diligence and therefore the Board need not
    consider them. 
    5 C.F.R. § 1201.115
    (d); see Meier v. Department of the Interior ,
    
    3 M.S.P.R. 247
    , 256 (1980) (finding that evidence that is already a part of the record is
    not new).
    4
    not the type of excessive delay that would lead the Board to conclude that OPM
    has improperly failed or refused to issue a decision.         See Okello v. Office of
    Personnel Management, 
    120 M.S.P.R. 498
    , ¶ 15 (2014) (finding that OPM’s
    failure to issue a final decision for 6 years constituted an appealable
    administrative action because the appellant diligently sought a final decision
    during that time period). However, as noted by the administrative judge, after
    OPM does issue a new reconsideration decision, the appellant may file a new
    appeal with the appropriate regional office if he disagrees with that decision. ID
    at 2; see Rorick v. Office of Personnel Management, 
    109 M.S.P.R. 597
    , ¶ 7
    (2008).
    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
    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.
    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
    (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.
    (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
    6
    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:
    7
    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).
    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
    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
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DA-0842-18-0399-I-1

Filed Date: 3/21/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/22/2024