Chris Swartwout v. Office of Personnel Management
Background
- Appellant Chris Swartwout, a former Postal Carrier, resigned in 1991 and received a $5,250.43 refund of his retirement deductions after years of pursuing a refund while on OWCP disability leave.
- In 2015 Swartwout applied for a deferred annuity; OPM denied benefits because he had withdrawn his retirement deductions, which forfeits annuity eligibility under 5 U.S.C. § 8342(a).
- Swartwout argued he was mentally unstable when he resigned and requested the refund, had been misled and not counseled about consequences, and may not have received the check.
- The administrative judge found OPM’s business records showed the refund check was issued and not returned, forms signed put him on notice that withdrawal forfeited annuity rights, and he failed to prove incompetence or nonreceipt.
- The Board denied review, affirming the initial decision: (1) a refund extinguishes annuity entitlement absent reemployment and redeposit; (2) evidence did not preponderantly show mental incompetence in 1991; (3) estoppel cannot overcome statutory eligibility limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did receipt of a full refund of retirement deductions bar annuity entitlement? | Swartwout implied the refund was erroneous or not received; he sought to preserve annuity rights. | OPM: receipt of refund under §8342(a) forfeits annuity unless redeposited after reemployment. | Held for OPM: refund extinguished annuity entitlement; appellant did not show entitlement at separation. |
| Was Swartwout mentally incompetent in 1991 such that his resignation/withdrawal is voidable? | Swartwout: mentally unstable when he resigned and requested refund, so decision should not bind him. | OPM: forms and conduct show understanding; no adjudication of incompetence or guardian; medical evidence didn’t prove incompetence in 1991. | Held for OPM: preponderant evidence did not show incompetence at the time; decision stands. |
| Can Swartwout rely on estoppel or misleading advice to preserve annuity despite statutory bar? | Swartwout: agency misled him and failed to counsel consequences. | OPM: government estoppel cannot create benefits not permitted by law (statutory ineligibility controls). | Held for OPM: estoppel cannot override statutory eligibility; Richmond controls. |
| Did procedural rulings (late agency filings, additional doc) prejudice appellant? | Swartwout: agency response was late and submitted extra material after prehearing. | OPM: agency filed after order but within deadline set by AJ; additional one document submitted; AJ acted within authority. | Held for OPM: appellant did not show abuse of discretion by AJ; no reversible procedural error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) (Government cannot be estopped to pay benefits not allowed by statute)
- Yarbrough v. Office of Personnel Management, 770 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (mental incompetence may invalidate a refund decision but requires proof; absence of adjudication/guardian and clarity of form weigh against incompetence)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (timeliness requirements for appeals are strictly enforced)