CourtListener opinion 2784107

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ALAN W. CARTER, DOCKET NUMBER
 Appellant, CH-0831-14-0619-I-1

 v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: March 4, 2015
 MANAGEMENT,
 Agency,

 and

KAREN CARTER,
 Intervenor.

 THIS FINAL ORDER IS NO NPRECEDENTIAL 1

 Alan W. Carter, Saint Louis, Missouri, pro se.

 Cynthia Reinhold, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

 Erin M. Zielinski, Esquire, St. Louis, Missouri, for the intervenor.

 BEFORE

 Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
 Mark A. Robbins, Member

1
 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
sign ificantly 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

 FINAL ORDER
¶1 The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review
 of the initial decision, which reversed its reconsideration decision regarding the
 processing of the appellant's amended domestic relations order (DRO). For the
 reasons discussed below, we GRANT OPM's petition for review, REVERSE the
 initial decision, and AFFIRM OPM's reconsideration decision.

 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2 The appellant, a former federal employee, submitted his application to
 commence Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) retirement benefits in 2010.
 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 102-05. The appellant was previously married
 and divorced during his federal employment. Id. at 77, 102. The divorce
 proceedings produced four documents that are material to this appeal. Those
 documents are:
 (1) a March 3, 1995 Marital Settlement Agreement, id. at 62-76;
 (2) a March 3, 1995 Family Court Judgment and Decree of
 Dissolution, id. at 77-81;
 (3) a June 8, 1995 Domestic Relations Order (1995 DRO), id. at
 55—61; and
 (4) a March 13, 2013 Amended Domestic Relations Order (amended
 DRO), id. at 50-54.
¶3 The appellant's pension was subject to the terms of the 1995 marital
 settlement agreement which resolved the property rights acquired by each party
 from the marriage. Id. at 63, 65-67. The 1995 DRO was drafted to comply with
 OPM regulations for apportioning benefits under the CSRS. Id. at 55. The 1995
 DRO provided that the intervenor would receive a former spouse survivor annuity
 at the maximum possible amount. Id. at 59. The amended DRO was drafted to
 correct provisions in the 1995 DRO involving CSRS benefits. Id. at 51. In
 3

 particular, the amended DRO changed the former spouse survivor annuity to
 provide a "prorata share" based on the duration of the marriage. Id. at 52.
¶4 In 2011, OPM notified the appellant that it had processed his former
 spouse's claim for retirement benefits under the 1995 DRO. Id. at 98. The
 appellant filed the amended DRO with OPM in 2013. Id. at 48. OPM notified the
 appellant that it could not process the amended DRO because the appellant had
 already retired and because it was not the first order dividing the marital property
 of the appellant and his former spouse. Id. at 48. The appellant requested
 reconsideration of OPM's decision. Id. at 14. OPM issued a reconsideration
 decision that affirmed its initial decision that it could not process the amended
 DRO as it related to the survivor annuity benefit. Id. at 5. OPM informed the
 appellant of his right to appeal the decision to the Board. Id. at 7.
¶5 The appellant initiated a timely Board appeal challenging OPM's
 reconsideration decision and requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1 at 1-6. The
 administrative judge conducted a conference call with the parties and notified
 them that the appellant's former spouse must be notified of the appeal and given
 the right to intervene because the outcome of the appeal would affect her rights
 and interests under the retirement plan. IAF, Tab 10 at 1, 3. The appellant's
 former spouse submitted notice of her intent to intervene in the appeal, and the
 administrative judge granted the request to intervene. IAF, Tabs 12-13. The
 administrative judge conducted a subsequent conference call with all the parties
 and reviewed the issues in the appeal. IAF, Tab 14 at 1-3. During the conference
 call, the appellant withdrew his request for hearing, so the administrative judge
 set a close of record date for submission of evidence and argument. Id. at 3. The
 intervenor submitted evidence and argument that she agreed with the appellant's
 argument that the amended DRO properly reflected the intent of the parties'
 original settlement agreement. IAF, Tab 16 at 3-4.
¶6 The administrative judge issued an initial decision that reversed OPM's
 reconsideration decision and directed OPM to process the amended DRO as it
 4

 related to the survivor annuity. IAF, Tab 17, Initial Decision (ID) at 6-7. The
 administrative judge found that the language of 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(b) allowed for
 the processing of the amended DRO because it was issued before the appellant
 died. ID at 5. The administrative judge reasoned that, because the subsection
 provided for the alternative of the order being issued either the day prior to
 retirement or the date of death, OPM could process the amended DRO if the
 appellant had not died, even though he had retired. ID at 5. In the alternative,
 the administrative judge found that, if 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(a) applied to the DRO,
 it was still acceptable for OPM to process. ID at 5. He stated that the amended
 DRO modified the 1995 DRO which was the second order that divided the marital
 property. ID at 5-6. Because the amended DRO did not modify the first order
 dividing the marital property, OPM could process this order. ID at 5-6.
¶7 OPM has filed a timely petition for review on the initial decision. Petition
 for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The appellant has filed a response to OPM's
 petition for review and seeks an order directing OPM to refund the excess
 deductions that it took to fund the survivor benefit provided for in the 1995 DRO.
 PFR File, Tab 2 at 11.
¶8 OPM argues that the administrative judge erred in finding the amended
 DRO to be acceptable for processing because the appellant retired before the date
 the court issued the amended DRO. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8. We agree.
¶9 As set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h), "a former spouse . . . is entitled to a
 survivor annuity under this subsection, if and to the extent expressly provided for
 . . . in the terms of any decree of divorce or annulment or any court order or
 court-approved property settlement agreement incident to such decree." 5 U.S.C.
 § 8341(h)(1). Section 8341(h)(4), however, provides that a modification of any
 such court-approved property settlement agreement dealing with a survivor
 annuity shall not be effective if the modification is made after the employee dies
 or retires. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4). By regulation, OPM has provided that a court
 order issued after an annuitant's retirement or death and modifying the first order
 5

 dividing the marital property is not acceptable for processing. 5 C.F.R.
 § 838.806(a).
¶10 In his initial decision, the administrative judge provided no case law in
 support of his determination that the amended DRO could be processed because
 the appellant had only retired but not died. ID at 5. The facts in the present
 appeal are similar to those in the case of Partain v. Office of Personnel
 Management, 63 F. App'x 473 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although Partain is an
 unpublished decision, the Board may rely on unpublished Federal Circuit
 decisions if it finds the court's reasoning persuasive. Mauldin v. U.S. Postal
 Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 513, ¶ 12 (2011). In Partain, the federal employee and his
 spouse were divorced in 1994 and their divorce settlement provided for a survivor
 annuity for the former spouse. Partain, 63 F. App'x at 473. The employee
 retired in 1999. Id. In 2001, the former spouse obtained orders from the divorce
 court amending the calculation of the survivor annuity, and OPM denied
 processing the adjustments. Id. at 474. The Board found that the 2001 orders
 were issued after the employee retired, so they were not effective to change the
 1994 order that established his former spouse's survivor annuity. Id. Our
 reviewing court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no legal error in the
 Board's decision. Id. at 475.
¶11 In the present appeal, the parties were divorced in 1995, and the appellant
 retired in 2010. IAF, Tab 4 at 77, 102. The appellant seeks OPM's processing of
 an amended DRO issued in 2013. Id. at 50-53. Therefore, the statutory language
 found in 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4) and our case law support OPM's argument that the
 amended DRO cannot be processed because it was issued after the appellant
 retired.
¶12 In the alternative, the administrative judge also found that the amended
 DRO would be acceptable for processing under 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(a) because it
 modified the second order dividing the marital property and not the first order.
 ID at 5-6. We disagree.
 6

¶13 A "modification" in a decree, order, or agreement referred to in section
 8341(h)(1) shall not be effective if the modification is made after the retirement
 of the employee concerned and "to the extent that such modification involves an
 annuity under this subsection." 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4); Lim v. Office of Personnel
 Management, 98 M.S.P.R. 173, ¶ 6 (2005). As explained in 5 C.F.R. § 838.806:
 A court order awarding a former spouse survivor annuity is not a
 court order acceptable for processing if it is issued after the date of
 retirement or death of the employee and modifies or replaces the
 first order dividing the marital property of the employee or retiree
 and the former spouse.
 Lim, 98 M.S.P.R. 173, ¶ 6 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 838.806(a)) (emphasis in original).
 The amended DRO, regardless of which order the document modifies, runs afoul
 of the statutory limits in 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4). First, the amended DRO was
 issued after the appellant retired. See 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4)(A). Second, the
 amended DRO is a modification involving a survivor annuity. See 5 U.S.C.
 § 8341(h)(4)(B). Because the amended DRO is not effective for purposes of
 modifying the provisions for a survivor annuity under 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4),
 OPM lacks the discretion to process the amendment. See Lim, 98 M.S.P.R. 173,
 ¶¶ 8, 10.
¶14 Accordingly, we REVERSE the administrative judge's initial decision and
 AFFIRM OPM's reconsideration decision. 2

 2
 We recognize that both parties agree that the terms of the amended DRO reflect the
 parties' actual intent regarding the survivor annuity for the appellant's former spouse.
 IAF, Tab 16 at 4. However, because the appellant retired from the federal service prior
 to correcting the DRO, OPM is barred by statute from processing the amended DRO and
 the statute contains no provision for amendment due to mutual mistake. See 5 U.S.C.
 § 8341; cf. James v. Office of Personnel Management, 372 F.3d 1365, 1369-70 (Fed.
 Cir. 2004) (declining to invalidate an election of a survivor annuity for a new spouse
 based on mutual mistake, in part to avoid the uncertainty that could result from
 allowing introduction of parole evidence contradicting the actual election).
 7

 NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
 YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
 You have the right to request the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit to review this final decision. You must submit your request to the
court at the following address:
 United States Court of Appeals
 for the Federal Circuit
 717 Madison Place, N.W.
 Washington, DC 20439

 The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar
days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec.
27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has
held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline
and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See
Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
 If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff.
Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United
States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm.
Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov.
Of particular relevance is the court's \Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and