Natalie Edwards v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NATALIE EDWARDS,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1889
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-844E-21-0191-I-1.
______________________
Decided: September 15, 2025
______________________
J ENNIFER D UKE I SAACS , Melville Johnson, P.C., At-
lanta, GA, for petitioner.
AUGUSTUS G OLDEN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALBERT S.
I AROSSI, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , YAAKOV R OTH .
______________________
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and
ANDREWS , District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Natalie Edwards appeals the decision of the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board (Board), which affirmed the Office
of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) determination that
Ms. Edwards’s request for reconsideration of her disability
retirement denial was untimely and unexcused. See Ed-
wards v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-844E-21-0191-I-1,
2024 MSPB LEXIS 1816 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 3, 2024) (Final Or-
der)2; see also Edwards v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-
844E-21-0191-I-1, 2022 MSPB LEXIS 591 (M.S.P.B. Feb.
17, 2022) (Initial Decision). For the following reasons, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Edwards worked for the Department of the Treas-
ury in its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as a Sen-
ior Advisor (Program Specialist) for approximately 13
years before resigning for medical reasons. On or about the
same day that she resigned, Ms. Edwards filed an applica-
tion for a disability retirement annuity under the Federal
Employees Retirement System. OPM determined that
Ms. Edwards did not meet the criteria for disability retire-
ment because she was not disabled within the meaning of
the law. OPM sent an initial decision letter dated July 23,
2020 to Ms. Edwards, informing her of its determination
and providing Ms. Edwards with instructions as to how she
could request reconsideration of the initial decision. The
1 Honorable Richard G. Andrews, District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
sitting by designation.
2 Because the electronic version of this decision lacks
page designations, we employ the pagination used in the
decision at J.A. 1–9.
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 3
instructions stated that the “request for reconsideration
must be received by OPM within 30 calendar days of the
date of this letter. If your request for reconsideration is
received by OPM after the 30-day time limit, we must dis-
miss your request as not timely filed.” J.A. 39 (emphasis
in original); see also 5 C.F.R. § 841.306(d)(1). Based on the
July 23, 2020 date of OPM’s initial decision letter, the
deadline for OPM’s receipt of Ms. Edwards’s request for re-
consideration was August 22, 2020. Because August 22,
2020 was a Saturday, Ms. Edwards’s deadline was auto-
matically extended to the next day that was not a Satur-
day, Sunday, or legal holiday: Monday, August 24, 2020.
5 C.F.R. § 831.107.
Although Ms. Edwards signed and dated her request
for reconsideration on August 20, 2020, she did not mail
her reconsideration form to OPM until August 24, 2020;
OPM did not receive her reconsideration request until Au-
gust 27, 2020. See J.A. 51–53. OPM noted that even
though Ms. Edwards’s reconsideration request arrived
past the deadline, she could seek a waiver of said deadline
if she could show either that she was not notified of the
time limit, or that she was prevented by circumstances be-
yond her control from timely making her request for recon-
sideration. Ms. Edwards timely submitted her waiver
request, asserting that she was prevented from timely sub-
mitting her reconsideration form as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic, serious illness, incapacitation, mandated
travel restrictions, and mail delays.
After OPM determined that Ms. Edwards did not qual-
ify for a waiver of the time limit and dismissed her request
for reconsideration as untimely, Ms. Edwards appealed to
the Board. The administrative judge held a hearing and
then issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s dismissal
of Ms. Edwards’s request for reconsideration. See Initial
Decision, 2022 MSPB LEXIS 591, at *1. In so doing, the
administrative judge found that (1) Ms. Edwards’s recon-
sideration request was postmarked on August 24, 2020 and
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 4
received by OPM on August 27, 2020; (2) she was notified
of the relevant time limit to submit her reconsideration
form; and (3) Ms. Edwards had failed to show that circum-
stances beyond her control prevented her from timely re-
questing reconsideration. Id. at *15–28. Ms. Edwards
appealed to the full Board, arguing for the first time that
she also faxed her reconsideration request to OPM on Au-
gust 24, 2020. Final Order, 2024 MSPB LEXIS 1816, at 1–
2. On April 3, 2024, the full Board affirmed the initial de-
cision “[a]fter thoroughly searching the record . . . [and] de-
termin[ing] that [Ms. Edwards] never raised this [fax-
related] argument or provided the fax receipt or her hand-
written note” showing she timely faxed in her reconsidera-
tion request. Id. Ms. Edwards now petitions us for review
of the Board’s final decision.
D ISCUSSION
We must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find
that it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with-
out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). An agency decision has substantial ev-
idence if it is supported by “such relevant evidence as a rea-
sonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Berlin v. Dep’t of Lab., 772 F.3d 890, 894 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
I. Timeliness of Petitioner’s Request
Ms. Edwards contends that the Board erred in deter-
mining that her reconsideration request was untimely. See
Pet’r’s Br. 10. Specifically, Ms. Edwards argues that the
Board overlooked her reconsideration form, which she
timely faxed on August 24, 2020. Id. at 11 (citing J.A. 48–
52). Although Ms. Edwards admits that she failed to pro-
vide proof of the fax to the administrative judge, she argues
that OPM knew or should have known that her reconsider-
ation was timely filed and should have provided that
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 5
information to the judge. Id. at 12. We are not persuaded
that the Board erred.
Ms. Edwards does not point to any place in the record
where she made any claim to OPM or the administrative
judge that she timely faxed the reconsideration request on
August 24, 2020. See id. at 10–12. A review of the record
before us only shows that Ms. Edwards consistently argued
that she timely mailed the reconsideration request, with-
out any reference to a simultaneous fax. See, e.g., J.A. 133
(“The certified letter requesting reconsideration I mailed,
postmarked 8/24/20 . . . .”); J.A. 138 (timeline created by
Ms. Edwards showing only that her request for reconsider-
ation was via “POSTMARKED Certified Mail to OPM,”
without reference to any fax); J.A. 212 (“On August 24,
2020, Appellant timely submitted her Reconsideration Re-
quest to OPM via certified mail.”). The Board thus reason-
ably determined that Ms. Edwards had never raised the
argument to OPM or the administrative judge that she had
timely faxed the reconsideration request. See Final Order,
2024 MSPB LEXIS 1816, at 1–2. The Board accordingly
acted within its discretion in declining to consider this new
argument. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(4) (once the record
closes, no additional evidence or argument will be accepted
unless it is “new and material as defined in
§ 1201.115(a)(1) and (d), and . . . not readily available be-
fore the record closed”); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d); see also
Brenneman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 439 F.3d 1325, 1328
(Fed. Cir. 2006). We similarly decline to consider evidence
that was not first presented to the administrative judge.
See Bosley v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) (“A party in an MSPB proceeding must raise an
issue before the administrative judge if the issue is to be
preserved for review in this court. Thus, if the party fails
to raise an issue in the administrative proceeding or raises
an issue for the first time in a petition for review by the full
Board, this court will not consider the issue.”).
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 6
II. Tolling of Petitioner’s Deadline
OPM has discretion to extend the time limit for filing a
request for reconsideration only when an individual shows
that (1) she was not notified of the time limit and was not
otherwise aware of it; or (2) she was prevented by circum-
stances beyond her control from making the request within
the time limit. Azarkhish v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 915 F.2d
675, 677 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also 5 C.F.R. § 841.306(d)(2).
On appeal to the Board, the appellant must prove by a pre-
ponderance of evidence that one of these two situations oc-
curred; only if such a showing is made will the Board
consider whether OPM acted unreasonably or abused its
discretion in refusing to extend the time limit. See
Azarkhish, 915 F.2d at 677–78.
Ms. Edwards does not contend that she was not
properly notified of the time limit. See generally, Pet’r’s Br.
12–18; see also Initial Decision, 2022 MSPB LEXIS 591, at
*17 (“I find that the appellant has not offered evidence that
she lacked notice of OPM’s time limitation for requesting
reconsideration.”). Instead, she argues that circumstances
related to COVID-19 and her health prevented her from
mailing her reconsideration request prior to August 24,
2020, and that OPM’s denial of her request for a waiver
was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. See Pet’r’s
Br. 12–18. Although we are sympathetic to the difficulties
Ms. Edwards experienced, we are not persuaded that the
Board’s determination that Ms. Edwards failed to meet her
burden was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in
accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
Ms. Edwards’s brief restates the arguments that she
unsuccessfully presented to the Board. Compare Pet’r’s Br.
12–18 (Ms. Edwards arguing that she timely faxed her re-
consideration request or, alternatively, her deadline to file
said request should be tolled due to circumstances outside
her control), with J.A. 54–55; J.A. 62–68; J.A. 215–17
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 7
(arguing same). Ms. Edwards re-asserts that the circum-
stances preventing her from timely requesting reconsider-
ation included travel orders restricting her movement
during the COVID-19 pandemic, an acute and severe ill-
ness during a portion of the relevant time period, and com-
plete dependency on her husband for transportation.
Pet’r’s Br. 14–15. She does not offer any new evidence or
argue that the Board applied the wrong law in affirming
OPM’s denial to extend the time limit for Ms. Edwards to
file her reconsideration request. See id.
Instead, Ms. Edwards disagrees with the administra-
tive judge’s conclusions, claiming that the administrative
judge “minimized” and “ignored” her allegations. See id.
But Ms. Edwards does not explain why it was unreasona-
ble for the administrative judge to find that neither the
COVID-19 pandemic restrictions nor her illnesses pre-
vented her from traveling to the post office, as she was able
to go there multiple times within the period provided for
filing a request for reconsideration. See id. at 15–17; see
also Initial Decision, 2022 MSPB LEXIS 591, at *5 (show-
ing Ms. Edwards going to the post office on August 5 and
August 24, 2020); id. at *23 (“Even taking the appellant’s
assertions regarding pandemic-related travel issues and
her own illness(es) as true, I find that nothing in the record
suggests the Covid-19 pandemic or the appellant’s illnesses
actually affected her ability to check her P.O. box with reg-
ularity or visit the post office in general when the need
arose.”).
Given the deferential standard of review we must ap-
ply, we conclude that the Board’s determination that
Ms. Edwards failed to meet her burden to show that cir-
cumstances beyond her control prevented her from filing a
timely reconsideration request is supported by substantial
evidence.
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 8
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Edwards’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1889 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 09/15/2025

-- 8 of 8 --