Lawrence White v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LAWRENCE WHITE,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1561
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0831-21-0247-I-2.
______________________
Decided: October 8, 2024
______________________
L AWRENCE WHITE, Mount Rainier, MD, pro se.
L AURA O FFENBACHER ARADI, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , L OREN MISHA
P REHEIM .
______________________
Before P ROST , REYNA, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1561 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 10/08/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 2
P ER CURIAM .
Lawrence White appeals pro se a final order of the
Merit Systems Protection Board denying his petition for re-
view of an initial decision regarding his annuity retirement
benefit. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. White served in various roles in the federal govern-
ment for over forty-six years. SAppx46.1 He retired from
federal service in March 2020. SAppx8. Shortly thereafter,
the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) notified Mr.
White that it had finalized and authorized payment of his
annuity retirement benefit. SAppx53. In July 2020, Mr.
White notified OPM that he disagreed with several aspects
of OPM’s computation of his annuity, and that OPM should
have returned his excess retirement deductions from his
years of service that exceeded forty-one years and eleven
months. SAppx51. In August 2020, OPM notified Mr.
White that it had correctly computed his annuity and ex-
plained the basis for the computation. SAppx43–44. As
relevant here, OPM explained that in 1979, Mr. White ap-
plied for and received a refund of his retirement contribu-
tions totaling $4,178.58 and that his receipt of this refund
resulted in a deduction to his annuity. Id. OPM also ex-
plained that while Mr. White had excess retirement deduc-
tions from his service that exceeded forty-one years and
eleven months, OPM applied the entirety of Mr. White’s
excess deductions to service periods in which Mr. White did
not have any retirement deductions withheld. SAppx43.
In September 2020, Mr. White sought reconsideration
of OPM’s computation. SAppx49. Mr. White argued that
he only received a refund of “about $1,300 something” in
1979, not $4,178.58. Id. In January 2021, OPM issued a
1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix accompanying the
government’s responsive brief.
Case: 24-1561 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 10/08/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 3
final decision affirming its computation of Mr. White’s an-
nuity. SAppx40–42.
In February 2021, Mr. White appealed to the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“Board”), again alleging that he
never received the full amount of the 1979 refund and that
OPM should have returned his excess retirement deduc-
tions from his service that exceeded forty-one years and
eleven months. SAppx38–39. An administrative judge af-
firmed OPM’s final decision. White v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
No. DC-0831-21-0247-I-2, 2022 WL 828629 (M.S.P.B.
Mar. 14, 2022) (SAppx7–29) (“Initial Decision”). In
April 2022, Mr. White filed a petition for review of the ad-
ministrative judge’s initial decision. SAppx64–89. The
Board denied Mr. White’s petition for review and thus the
administrative judge’s initial decision became the Board’s
final decision. White v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-0831-
21-0247-I-2, 2024 WL 621409 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 13, 2024)
(SAppx30–37) (“Final Decision”).
Mr. White appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
S TANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of Board decisions is limited. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c). We set aside a Board decision only when it is “(1)
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without proce-
dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol-
lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” Id.
D ISCUSSION
Mr. White argues that the Board erred in affirming
OPM’s computation of his annuity because Mr. White
never received the total amount of the $4,178.58 refund
from 1979. Appellant Informal Br. 4. According to Mr.
White, there is no record or payment history to show that
he received the full refund amount. Id. Mr. White also
argues that the Board further erred because OPM should
Case: 24-1561 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 10/08/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 4
have returned his excess retirement deductions from his
service that exceeded forty-one years and eleven months.
Id. We are not persuaded that the Board erred.
Mr. White bears the burden to establish that he did not
receive a full refund of his retirement contributions or that
he is entitled to additional retirement benefits. See
Cheeseman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 141 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). A claimant’s uncorroborated assertion that he
did not receive a refund does not satisfy the claimant’s bur-
den when there has been a significant delay in reporting
the non-receipt, and OPM has introduced ordinary course
of business evidence to the contrary. See Rint v. Off. of
Pers. Mgmt., 48 M.S.P.R. 69, 71–72 (1991), aff’d, 950 F.2d
731 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Landvogt v. Off. of Pers.
Mgmt., 516 F. App’x 923, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The Board considered Mr. White’s testimony that he
only received a partial refund and weighed that testimony
against OPM’s evidence to the contrary. SAppx14–19.
Specifically, the Board credited a record OPM provided
known as a Standard Form 2806. SAppx17. This record
lists the total amount of Mr. White’s cumulative retirement
deductions from 1973 to 1979 as $4,178.58. SAppx17; see
also Appellant Informal Br. 20 (copy of Standard
Form 2806 appended to Mr. White’s brief). It also includes
handwritten notations under the heading “Refund Author-
ized” and subheading “Payment,” which list $4,178.58 and
a signature dated November 1, 1979. SAppx17; see also
Appellant Informal Br. 20. Below the handwritten nota-
tions is a date stamp reflecting a date of November 7, 1979.
SAppx17; see also Appellant Informal Br. 20. The Board
found “no indication that OPM processed only a partial re-
fund,” deemed Mr. White’s version of events “inherently
unlikely,” and determined that Mr. White failed to show
that he did not receive the full refund. SAppx16–17.
We agree with the Board that Mr. White failed to carry
his burden to prove non-receipt of the full amount of the
Case: 24-1561 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 10/08/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 5
authorized refund of $4,178.58 in 1979. The only evidence
Mr. White presented to support his argument that he did
not receive the full amount of the refund is his own testi-
mony. Because Mr. White’s testimony is uncorroborated,
and there has been a significant delay since OPM issued
the 1979 refund to Mr. White, OPM’s record of payment is
substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion
that Mr. White received the 1979 refund in full.
SAppx14–19; Rint, 48 M.S.P.R. at 71–72.
The Board also considered Mr. White’s argument that
OPM should have returned his excess retirement deduc-
tions from his service that exceeded forty-one years and
eleven months. The Board found that Mr. White submitted
“little to no evidence in support of his claim[].” SAppx21.
In light of this finding and OPM’s evidence to the contrary,
the Board concluded that Mr. White “failed to establish by
preponderant evidence that OPM’s calculation of his annu-
ity was incorrect.” Id.
We agree with the Board that Mr. White failed to carry
his burden of proof. Mr. White does not appear to dispute
that he had several years of nondeduction service. Nor
does Mr. White dispute the requirement that OPM apply
excess deductions to periods of nondeduction service. In
sum, Mr. White provides no basis as to why the Board’s
determination was legally erroneous, arbitrary, capricious,
procedurally improper, or unsupported by substantial evi-
dence. And we do not discern any such error.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. White’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated, we
affirm the Board’s denial of Mr. White’s petition for review.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1561 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 10/08/2024

-- 5 of 5 --