Miller v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3326
BARBARA JEAN MILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Benjamin E. Orsatti, Pollock Begg Komar Glasser LLC, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
for petitioner.
Michael D. Austin, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the
brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades,Jr., Assistant Director.
Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3326
BARBARA JEAN MILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in
PH0831080085-I-1.
____________________________
DECIDED: May 11, 2009
____________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Barbara Miller appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board
(“Board”) affirming the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”)
denying her survivor annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System. Miller
v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., PH-0831-08-0085-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 26, 2008). Because the
Board’s decision was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Barbara Miller was married to Kenneth Miller when the latter retired from federal
service on June 30, 1999. Mr. Miller’s federal employment included serving eight years
in the U.S. Air Force, eight years in a civilian job with the U.S. Army, and over twenty
years with the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. Miller retired from the Department of
Labor under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). At the time of his
retirement Mr. Miller opted for reduced monthly payments on his lifetime annuity in order
to provide a survivor annuity for his wife. That survivor annuity would take effect after
Mr. Miller’s death. In addition to his CSRS annuity, Mr. Miller’s service in the Air Force
entitled him to a military pension as well.
Shortly after Mr. Miller’s retirement, the Millers separated. On October 15, 1999,
Mr. Miller filed for divorce. Nearly five years later, on June 11, 2004, the Millers entered
into a Decree and Order (the “2004 Decree”) providing for an equitable distribution of
their assets. Among other things, the 2004 Decree granted appellant a 28% share of
Mr. Miller’s military pension. The 2004 Decree also stipulated that appellant would
receive a reduced receipt of Mr. Miller’s Department of Labor pension, which was then
in pay status.
On June 14, 2005, the Millers consented to the entry of a Qualified Domestic
Relations Order (the “2005 QDRO”) that provided appellant with “fifty percent of [Mr.
Miller’s] monthly annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System.” On July 1, 2005,
the Millers entered into a Consent Order of Court (“2005 Amendment”) amending
Paragraph 4(a) of the 2004 Decree. The following language was added to that
paragraph:
2008-3326
-2-
Barbara J. Miller shall retain survivor benefits and Barbara J. Miller shall
receive survivor benefits from the Survivor Benefit Plan upon the death of
Kenneth E. Miller.
On September 8, 2005, the Millers’ divorce was finalized. The decree of the
Court of Common Pleas incorporated the 2004 Decree, but did not mention the 2005
QDRO or the 2005 Amendment.
Shortly after the divorce was finalized, on October 26, 2005, Mr. Miller submitted
to OPM a “Request for Change to Unreduced Annuity.” Mr. Miller requested that OPM
begin sending him his monthly retirement benefits in an unreduced amount, effectively
terminating the survivor annuity for his ex-wife.
On March 3, 2007, Mr. Miller passed away. Shortly thereafter, appellant called
OPM and was informed that all annuity benefits had been terminated. On May 24,
2007, appellant was granted a Petition to Clarify Order (“2007 Clarification”) by the
Court of Common Pleas that conducted the Walkers’ divorce proceedings. The 2007
Clarification stated that the 2005 Amendment “was intended to apply to both the military
pension and the Department of Labor Pension.” The order explicitly characterized itself
as a “clarification” of the 2005 Amendment, not a “modification” of that order.
On May 31, appellant requested survivor annuity benefits from OPM and
attached a copy of the 2007 Clarification. OPM denied that request because the
divorce decree in OPM’s file, the 2004 Decree, made no reference to any survivor
benefits payable under CSRS. Miller requested reconsideration of OPM’s decision. In
response, OPM affirmed its initial decision. According to OPM, the 2004 Decree did not
contain an express allocation of survivor annuity benefits as required by U.S.C. § 8341.
In further support of its decision, OPM pointed to the fact that the 2005 Amendment
2008-3326
-3-
amended only the paragraph relating to Mr. Miller’s military pension. OPM did not
consider the 2007 Clarification because it was received after Mr. Miller’s death.
Appellant timely appealed to the Board. In an initial decision dated February 28,
2008, the administrative judge (“AJ”) affirmed OPM’s denial of appellant’s claim. The
AJ found that appellant had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
she was entitled to a survivor annuity under CSRS. According to the AJ, the 2004
Decree, the 2005 Amendment, and the 2005 QDRO all failed to expressly provide for a
former spouse survivor annuity. The AJ also found the 2007 Clarification to be an
“impermissible modification.” Miller, slip. op. at *6.
Appellant appealed the AJ’s decision. On June 26, 2008, the Board denied her
petition for review and the AJ’s decision became the final decision of the Board.
Appellant then timely appealed the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
DISCUSSION
The scope of our review in an appeal from a Board decision is limited. We can
only set aside the Board’s decision if it was “(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) (2000); see Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). A claimant for benefits under the CSRS
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to such benefits.
True v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 926 F.2d 1151, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
2008-3326
-4-
On appeal, appellant argues that the Board erred in its interpretation of the
language and purpose of the 2005 Amendment. According to her, the 2005
Amendment secured her right to a former spouse survivor annuity stemming from Mr.
Miller’s work with the Department of Labor. In advancing that interpretation of the 2005
Amendment, she relies heavily on our decision in Fox v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 100 F.3d
141 (Fed. Cir. 1996). She further alleges that OPM denied her survivor benefits after
assuring her that she would receive such benefits. That assurance, appellant argues,
should bind OPM under a theory of equitable estoppel.
The government replies that appellant is not entitled to CSRS survivor benefits
because Mr. Miller timely revoked his earlier election to provide a survivor annuity to his
wife. Furthermore, the government contends, the various court decrees dividing the
Millers’ marital property do not expressly provide for a survivor annuity and therefore do
not entitle appellant to such an annuity.
We agree with the government. A former spouse of a deceased employee is
entitled to a survivor annuity if the employee elected to provide for such an annuity or if
provided for in the terms of a divorce decree or “any court order or court approved
settlement” incident to such a decree. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(1). It is clear, and appears to
be uncontested, that Mr. Miller was entitled to revoke his election to provide his ex-wife
with a survivor annuity. That being the case, the only method with which appellant
could have secured her rights to a survivor annuity per 5 U.S.C. § 8341 was through a
court order incident to the divorce decree.
To meet the statutory requirements needed to secure survivor annuity rights, a
court order must expressly provide for such an award in the “decree of divorce . . . or
2008-3326
-5-
any court order or court-approved property settlement incident to such de[c]ree.” 5
U.S.C. § 8341(h)(1); see also 5 C.F.R. § 838.804(a) (allowing processing only if court
order expressly grants annuity or expressly directs the employee to elect such an
annuity). In this case, there are four court orders that were “incident” to the divorce
decree that are relevant to the right to a survivor annuity for appellant. Those orders
are the 2004 Decree, the 2005 QDRO, the 2005 Amendment, and the 2007
Clarification. Appellant only alleges that the latter two, the 2005 Amendment and the
2007 Clarification, are explicit enough to grant annuity rights under OPM regulations
and we therefore will address only those two court orders.
Before analyzing whether the 2005 Amendment grants survivor annuity rights to
appellant, we turn to the question whether such a grant would be sufficient under U.S.C.
§ 8341(h)(1). We conclude that it is not, and that conclusion moots the question
whether that amendment lawfully granted such rights. The 2005 Amendment modifies
the distribution of marital assets set out in the 2004 Decree by granting additional
survivor rights to appellant. However, 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4) excludes such
modifications from triggering the survivor annuity protections of § 8341(h)(1).
Subsection (h)(4) states that a modification of a decree shall not be effective if (1) “such
modification is made after the retirement or death of the employee” and (2) “to the
extent that such modification involves the annuity under” subsection (h). Thus, since
the 2005 Amendment was made after Mr. Miller’s retirement, it cannot secure any rights
to a survivor annuity for Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller’s reliance on Fox, 100 F.3d 141, is
similarly inapplicable because that case deals with an original divorce decree, not a
modification. The present case, because it requires us to look at a modification of a
2008-3326
-6-
divorce decree, requires us to analyze U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4), whereas Fox, which did not
involve a modification, did not.
We hold similarly with regard to the 2007 Clarification. 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(b)(1)
states that any order “clarifying a court order that awards . . . a former spouse survivor
annuity . . . must be issued on a day prior to the date of retirement or date of death of
the employee.” Thus, since the 2007 Clarification was issued after Mr. Miller’s death, it
does not secure survivor annuity rights for appellant.
The situation that Mrs. Miller faces in this appeal, while a sympathetic one, is
unfortunately not rare, where a retired employee changes his election of survivor
annuity rights and a divorce decree is not explicit regarding disposition of that specific
entitlement. However, the statutes and regulations are quite definite concerning the
requirements for a former spouse survivor annuity, and this court cannot act contrary to
those provisions. Mrs. Miller’s equitable estoppel argument thus fails because the
alleged statements of an OPM employee cannot override the clear requirements
governing survivor annuities.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision.
COSTS
No costs.
2008-3326
-7-