Gloria Slagle v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GLORIA SLAGLE,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1242
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0843-20-0739-I-1.
______________________
Decided: July 8, 2025
______________________
GLORIA SLAGLE, McLeansville, NC, pro se.
ELIZABETH MARIE DURFEE PULLIN, Commercial Litiga-
tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented
by DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,
CORINNE ANNE NIOSI, BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1242 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

SLAGLE v. OPM 2
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL, Circuit Judge, and
WANG, District Judge.1
PER CURIAM.
Gloria Slagle petitions for review of a decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming the Of-
fice of Personnel Management’s (OPM) holding that she is
ineligible for a survivor annuity benefit based on the fed-
eral service of her spouse. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Wayne Slagle worked for the United States Postal Ser-
vice until his retirement. S. Appx. 9.2 In May 1997, he
designated his then-wife, Sarah Slagle, as the beneficiary
for any lump-sum benefit payable under the Federal Em-
ployees Retirement System (FERS) after his death.
S. Appx. 26 (Designation of Beneficiary Federal Employees
Retirement System Form (SF3102)). In November 2007,
he applied for immediate retirement and elected to receive
a reduced annuity with a maximum survivor annuity for
Sarah. S. Appx. 27. The immediate retirement application
informed Wayne:
Your election to provide a survivor annuity for a
current spouse terminates upon the death of that
spouse or if the marriage ends due to divorce or an-
nulment. You are required to make a new election
(reelect) within 2 years of the terminating event if
you wish to reelect a former spouse or within 2
years of a post-retirement marriage to elect a post-
retirement spouse.
1 Honorable Nina Y. Wang, District Judge, United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by
designation.
2 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 25-1242 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

SLAGLE v. OPM 3
Id. After his retirement in March 2008, Wayne divorced
Sarah and in December 2008 married Gloria. S. Appx. 3.
Wayne passed away in June 2019. S. Appx. 9.
After Wayne’s death, Gloria applied for a survivor an-
nuity. Id. OPM denied the application. S. Appx. 22–23.
OPM had, pursuant to Wayne’s 1997 designation, paid Sa-
rah a lump-sum benefit. S. Appx. 11. Gloria appealed.
The Board held Gloria was not entitled to the survivor an-
nuity and affirmed OPM’s denial and payment of the lump-
sum benefit to Sarah. S. Appx. 12.. Gloria petitions for
review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
DISCUSSION
We will set aside a decision of the Board if it is “(1) ar-
bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with the law; (2) obtained without proce-
dures by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703.
Gloria argues OPM’s payment of the lump-sum benefit
to Sarah was improper because Wayne and Sarah divorced
in 2008, which, according to the signed designation forms,
terminated his designation of Sarah as his beneficiary.
Pet’r’s Informal Br. 3 (citing S. Appx. 27). Gloria also ar-
gues Wayne never reelected Sarah as his beneficiary. Id.
We do not agree the payment of the lump-sum benefit to
Sarah was improper.
Under FERS, there are two different types of survivor
benefits: (1) survivor annuities and (2) lump-sum benefits.
A survivor annuity is a monthly payment made after the
death of an employee or retiree. For retirees, survivor an-
nuities are only paid if the retiree elected this benefit at
retirement, which reduces their own monthly pension
while they are alive. By contrast, a lump-sum benefit is a
one-time payment made to a designated beneficiary (via
Form SF3102) if no eligible person qualifies for a survivor
annuity. Lump-sum benefits include the deceased’s
Case: 25-1242 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

SLAGLE v. OPM 4
retirement contributions not already paid out through an-
nuities. In sum, a survivor annuity is a recurring monthly
payment whereas a lump-sum benefit is a one-time pay-
ment when no annuity is available or appropriate.
Wayne designated Sarah as the beneficiary of both his
survivor annuity and any lump-sum benefits payable un-
der FERS after his death. S. Appx 26; S. Appx. 27. How-
ever, at the time of his death, neither Sarah nor Gloria
were eligible for his survivor annuity benefits. Sarah was
not eligible because Wayne’s 2007 designation of her as the
beneficiary automatically terminated upon divorce, and he
did not reelect her as a former spouse within two years of
their divorce. S. Appx. 27. Gloria was not eligible because
Wayne did not elect her as a post-retirement spouse within
two years of their marriage. Id.; see also S. Appx. 11–12.
Because no one qualified for Wayne’s survivor annuity, his
unpaid retirement contributions were instead paid as a
one-time lump-sum to the designated beneficiary of record.
5 C.F.R. § 831.2003(a) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 8342(c)). Wayne’s
1997 designation of Sarah as the beneficiary of any lump-
sum benefits, unlike the survivor annuity, was not auto-
matically terminated by divorce. S. Appx. 26.
Unfortunately, in order for Gloria to be entitled to any
of Wayne’s survivor benefits, Wayne needed to either
(1) elect Gloria as his post-retirement spouse within two
years of their marriage, or (2) withdraw his 1997 designa-
tion of Sarah. Because Wayne did neither, under these cir-
cumstances, Sarah is entitled to the lump-sum benefit.
While we are sympathetic, the government is bound by the
statute. 5 U.S.C. § 8342(c) (“Lump-sum benefits . . . shall
be paid to . . . the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by
the employee or Member in a signed and witnessed writing
received in the Office before his death.”).
Case: 25-1242 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

SLAGLE v. OPM 5
CONCLUSION
We have considered Gloria’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1242 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 5 of 5 --