Beverly A. White v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BEVERLY A. WHITE,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2052
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DA-0831-22-0375-I-1.
______________________
Decided: February 7, 2025
______________________
BEVERLY A. WHITE, Houston, TX, pro se.
K ARA WESTERCAMP , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE H OSFORD, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and C UNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-2052 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 02/07/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 2
P ER CURIAM .
Beverly White appeals a decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (Board) affirming the Office of Personnel
Management’s (OPM) denial of her request for a deferred
annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS). For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. White worked as a nurse assistant for the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 1982 until 1990. S.
Appx. 11.1 In 1991, Ms. White submitted an “Application
for Refund of Retirement Deductions” under the CSRS to
OPM. S. Appx. 31. The form required Ms. White to iden-
tify living current or former spouses and to notify said
spouses she was applying for a refund. Id. at 32–33.
Ms. White identified her current husband, Franklin White,
her ex-husband, Franklin Bingham, and stated the where-
abouts of her ex-husband were unknown. Id. OPM subse-
quently requested Ms. White submit affidavits confirming
she did not know her ex-husband’s whereabouts. S. Appx.
37. She did, and OPM authorized a refund of deductions in
1991. S. Appx. 38–41; see also S. Appx. 49 (archival data
showing OPM paid Ms. White $8,772.49 via a voucher
dated April 15, 1991).
In 2022, Ms. White applied for deferred or postponed
retirement benefits based on prior federal service. S. Appx.
42. OPM denied her request based on her previous refund.
S. Appx. 16. Ms. White argued she never received a refund
or intended to apply for a refund; she merely reached out
to OPM with questions about pension benefits. Id. OPM
could not provide confirmation of whether Ms. White
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 24-2052 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 02/07/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 3
received the refund because the voucher was over 9 years
old. Id. at 20.
Ms. White appealed, and the Board held she had not
carried her “burden to establish an entitlement to the ben-
efits” by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 17–19; see
also Cheeseman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 141
(Fed. Cir. 1986). The Board noted Ms. White offered little
evidence other than her own testimony that she did not re-
ceive the refund, S. Appx. 19, and found OPM’s records
“compiled and maintained in the ordinary course of busi-
ness” outweighed this testimony, id. at 20. The Board also
found the lack of evidence of Ms. White’s receipt of the 1991
refund was “due to the lapse of time” and was “material
and prejudicial to OPM.” Id. at 20.
Ms. White petitioned for review of the Board’s decision,
and the Board denied her request. S. Appx. 2. Ms. White
now appeals. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
On appeal, Ms. White argues the Board erred: (1) in
finding she applied for and received a refund, (2) in disre-
garding inconsistencies and omissions within OPM’s rec-
ords and the record below, and (3) by failing to address the
administrative judge’s bias and misrepresentations of her
testimony. We must affirm a Board decision unless it is
“(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
wise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-
cedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
U.S.C. § 7703(c).
Ms. White argues the Board erred in finding she ap-
plied for and received a refund. Appellant’s Informal Reply
Br. 2, 9. The Board relied on Ms. White’s signed 1991 ap-
plication, her repeated correspondence with OPM to ensure
its completion, and her lack of refuting evidence. S. Appx.
Case: 24-2052 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 02/07/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 4
19. Absent fraud, duress, or mental incompetence,
Ms. White’s voluntary signing of her 1991 refund applica-
tion is binding. See Braza v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 598 F.3d
1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Ms. White bears the burden of
establishing her eligibility for deferred retirement.
Cheeseman, 791 F.2d at 141. Although she testified that
she did not receive a refund, she did not provide any sup-
porting evidence. S. Appx. 19. We hold the Board’s deci-
sion that Ms. White applied for and received a refund is
supported by substantial evidence.
Ms. White argues the Board erred by disregarding in-
consistencies and omissions within OPM’s records and the
record below. Appellant’s Informal Br. 5–6; Appellant’s In-
formal Reply Br. 4–10. Ms. White’s arguments amount to
a dispute that the Board improperly weighed documents in
the record, but “this court does not reweigh evidence on ap-
peal.” In re NTP, Inc, 654 F.3d 1279, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Our review is limited to whether the Board’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence, which does not include
determining the credibility of the evidence relied on by the
Board.
Ms. White argues the Board showed bias against her
by portraying her as “disoriented and cognitively im-
paired,” and bias for the agency by “failing to consider [her]
corrections and updates properly.” Appellant’s Informal
Br. 5–6. We may only grant a new hearing based on an
administrative judge’s bias if it rises to the standard of “a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair
judgment impossible.” Bieber v. Dep’t of Army, 287 F.3d
1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Ms. White does not cite
specific examples for either of her claims or point to evi-
dence of “deep-seated favoritism” for the agency or “antag-
onism” against her. Bieber, 287 F.3d at 1362. While the
Board cited Ms. White’s failure to recall certain elements
of the case, it directly quoted her testimony. S. Appx. 16–
Case: 24-2052 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 02/07/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

WHITE v. OPM 5
17. This does not demonstrate deep-seated favoritism or
antagonism warranting a new hearing.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. White’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Board’s deci-
sion affirming OPM’s denial of Ms. White’s request for
CSRS annuity.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2052 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 02/07/2025

-- 5 of 5 --