CourtListener opinion 10802945

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

BERNADETTE TOMAS, DOCKET NUMBER
 Appellant, DE-831M-24-0104-I-1

 v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: February 19, 2025
 MANAGEMENT,
 Agency.

 THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

 Bernadette Tomas , Pagosa Springs, Colorado, pro se.

 Eva Ukkola , Kevin D. Alexander Sr. , and Alison Pastor , Washington, D.C.,
 for the agency.

 BEFORE

 Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
 Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman
 Raymond A. Limon, Member

 FINAL ORDER

 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
reversed a reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) finding that the appellant had received an overpayment in annuity benefits

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 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) on the basis that OPM had
failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of the overpayment. For the
reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant's petition for review and
MODIFY the initial decision to find that OPM failed to prove the existence of the
entirety of the $66,438 overpayment debt. The initial decision remains otherwise
AFFIRMED.

 BACKGROUND
 The following facts have been derived from the notices the appellant
provided in response to the administrative judge's acknowledgment order. The
appellant was married to a former Federal employee who retired from Federal
service effective November 2, 1997, and who elected to receive a reduced annuity
to provide the appellant with a maximum survivor annuity benefit equal to 55%
of his basic annuity. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 15, 40, 177. They
divorced, and, by letter dated June 25, 2004, OPM informed the appellant that it
would honor a Domestic Relations Order providing her with a survivor annuity
award computed based on 55% of her former spouse's annuity payment as of the
date of his retirement. Id. at 37. The appellant began receiving former spouse
annuity benefits effective September 1, 2002. Id. at 21. Then, when the
appellant's former spouse passed away on September 7, 2020, the appellant began
to receive survivor annuity payments. Id. at 55, 95.
 Sometime thereafter, the appellant challenged the amount and the
calculation of her survivor annuity award with OPM. Id. at 73. In a
September 20, 2021 reconsideration decision, OPM denied the appellant's request
for recomputation of her survivor annuity award. Id. at 77-79. Then, by letter
dated July 21, 2022, OPM rescinded its June 25, 2004 decision awarding the
appellant a survivor annuity award equal to 55% of her former spouse's annuity
payment, and instead determined that the appellant was only entitled to a survivor
annuity award computed at 50% of the maximum survivor annuity benefit. Id.
 3

at 94-97. Subsequently, on February 27, 2023, OPM advised the appellant that
because her former spouse's annuity had not been reduced for the maximum
survivor annuity benefit, an overpayment of $6,275.81 had resulted, and OPM
intended to seek repayment of the debt in 16 monthly installments. Id. at 121-23.
The appellant sought reconsideration of that decision, id. at 127-34, and on
June 21, 2023, OPM concluded that it would terminate collection of the $6,275.81
debt. Id. at 145.
 Then, in a letter dated August 3, 2023, OPM explained its calculation of the
overpayment debt for the first time, stating that the appellant's former spouse's
annuity had not been reduced for survivor benefits, resulting in an overpayment
of $66,438. Id. at 154. The letter further noted that the appellant had not
received the full amount of her survivor annuity award for the period from
September 8, 2020 through January 31, 2023, resulting in an underpayment of
$60,162.19 in accrued survivor annuity benefits. Id. OPM stated that it was
applying the accrued survivor annuity amount to the overpayment, resulting in a
remaining debt of $6,275.81. Id. Nevertheless, OPM informed the appellant that
it had "reconsidered and is closing out the remaining claim for $6,275.81 based
on [the appellant's] request." Id.
 On November 2, 2023, OPM informed the appellant that it was affirming
its initial decision finding that she had been overpaid $6,275.81 in annuity
benefits. Id. at 177-80. OPM did not identify the date of the initial decision that
it was affirming in that letter. However, the letter identified the $66,438
overpayment amount and the $60,162.19 in "accrued survivor annuity benefits
due," and stated that it had "applied the accrued due to the overpayment leaving a
balance of $6,275.81," but that it was "waiving the uncollected portion of the
$6,275.81 which was not collected for the survivor annuity." Id. at 177-78. The
letter also provided the appellant with notice of her right to appeal OPM's final
decision to the Board. Id. at 179.
 4

 The appellant timely filed the instant Board appeal challenging OPM's
November 2, 2023 reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 1 at 4. She acknowledged
that OPM had waived $6,275.81 of the overpayment amount but requested that
the Board order OPM to waive the remaining overpayment amount and reimburse
the entire $60,162.19 in accrued survivor annuity benefits for the period that she
received the reduced survivor annuity award. Id. at 9.
 After OPM failed to file an agency file, and failed to respond to two show
cause orders instructing it to respond to the appeal, IAF, Tabs 5, 7, the
administrative judge issued an initial decision reversing OPM's November 2,
2023 reconsideration decision, IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 5. The
administrative judge identified the issue the appellant was challenging in her
appeal as OPM's November 2, 2023 reconsideration decision affirming its initial
decision dated February 27, 2023, assessing an overpayment debt of $6,275.81.
ID at 1-2. The administrative judge determined that because OPM had not
complied with his orders instructing it to provide evidence concerning the
existence of the overpayment, OPM had failed to meet its burden of proving that
the overpayment existed. ID at 4. Consequently, the administrative judge
reversed OPM's reconsideration decision and canceled the overpayment debt. ID
at 4-5.
 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, arguing
that the administrative judge erred by determining that the matter being
challenged was the $6,275.81 overpayment debt, and not the entirety of $66,438
overpayment debt identified by OPM, $60,162.19 of which was remaining.
Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4-5, Tab 4 at 4. Specifically, the
appellant requests that the Board modify the initial decision to cancel the
remaining $60,162.19 overpayment amount and to order OPM to reimburse her
the $60,162.19 in accrued survivor annuity benefits that was used to satisfy a
portion of the overpayment debt. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6, Tab 5 at 6. OPM
responded to the appellant's petition for review, agreeing with the appellant that
 5

the initial decision failed to address the full extent of the overpayment amount on
which the appeal was based and acknowledging that the $6,275.81 overpayment
figure that the initial decision reversed had already been waived. PFR File, Tab 4
at 4-5. However, OPM requests that the Board vacate the initial decision
reversing OPM's reconsideration decision and remand the appeal to the regional
office to address the appellant's request to waive the remaining $60,162.19
overpayment debt. PFR File, Tab 4 at 4-5.

 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
 OPM bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
an overpayment has occurred. 5 C.F.R. § 831.1407(a). If the agency is able to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that an overpayment has occurred, the
burden shifts to the appellant to establish by substantial evidence her entitlement
to a waiver or adjustment of the overpayment. 5 C.F.R. § 831.1407(a).
Nevertheless, the burden of proof does not shift to the appellant until OPM has
proven the existence and amount of an overpayment by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. If OPM does not present evidence that establishes all elements
necessary to prove that an overpayment has occurred, "it is not the responsibility
of the administrative judge to continue to prod OPM into disgorging sufficient
evidence." Sansom v. Office of Personnel Management, 62 M.S.P.R. 560, 564
(1994); see Owens v. Office of Personnel Management, 45 M.S.P.R. 86, 90 (1990)
(finding that OPM had not presented evidence sufficient to prove that the
appellant was eligible for Old Age and Survivor Insurance benefits and, given
conflicting evidence in the record, the reconsideration decision finding the
existence of an overpayment could not be affirmed).
 In the instant case, OPM did not submit a single filing before the
administrative judge. In fact, not only did OPM fail to produce an agency file,
but it also failed to respond to any of the administrative judge's repeated orders to
present evidence and argument establishing the existence of an overpayment.
 6

Because OPM presented no evidence, we discern no basis to disturb the
administrative judge's finding that OPM failed to prove the existence of the
overpayment. ID at 4. However, to the extent that the administrative judge
indicated that the overpayment debt is $6,275.81, ID at 1-2, the amount of
overpayment claimed by OPM is $66,438, IAF, Tab 6 at 154, 177. Accordingly,
we modify the initial decision only to clarify that OPM did not prove the
existence of an overpayment debt of $66,438. To the extent that the appellant
seeks to recover the $60,162.19 in accrued survivor annuity benefits that was
used to satisfy a portion of the overpayment debt, PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6, Tab 5
at 6, the appellant can file a separate Board appeal once she receives a final
decision from OPM denying her the accrued survivor annuity benefits, Ramirez v.
Office of Personnel Management, 114 M.S.P.R. 511, ¶ 7 (2010) (stating that the
Board generally lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a retirement matter before
OPM has issued a final or reconsideration decision on the matter).

 ORDER
 We ORDER OPM to reverse its November 2, 2023 reconsideration decision
finding an overpayment debt of $66,438. OPM must complete this action no later
than 20 days after the date of this decision.
 We also ORDER OPM to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it
believes it has fully carried out the Board's Order and of the actions it has taken
to carry out the Board's Order. We ORDER the appellant to provide all necessary
information OPM requests to help it carry out the Board's Order. The appellant,
if not notified, should ask OPM about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
 No later than 30 days after OPM tells the appellant it has fully carried out
the Board's Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the
office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that
OPM did not fully carry out the Board's Order. The petition should contain
specific reasons why the appellant believes OPM has not fully carried out the
 7

Board's Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications
with OPM. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

 NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
 YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
 ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
 You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at title 5 of
the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
the initial decision on your appeal.

 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.

2
 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.
 8

 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.

 (2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
 9

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.
 10

 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).

3
 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.
 11

 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.