Chris Swartwout v. Office of Personnel Management
Background
- Appellant Swartwout, a postal carrier, went on OWCP disability leave for a mental condition beginning 1986 and sought a refund of his federal retirement contributions; he resigned in 1991 and OPM paid a $5,250.43 lump-sum refund.
- In 2015 Swartwout applied for a deferred annuity; OPM denied benefits because he had withdrawn his retirement deductions, invoking 5 U.S.C. § 8342(a).
- Swartwout argued he was mentally unstable when he resigned and requested the refund, that he was misled or not counseled about the consequences, and that he never received the check.
- The administrative judge found agency records showing a check was issued in 1991, that the refund forms informed him that a refund voids annuity rights, and that Swartwout failed to prove incompetence or nonreceipt.
- The AJ concluded estoppel cannot grant benefits not authorized by law and affirmed OPM’s denial; the Board denied review and adopted the initial decision as final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Swartwout’s 1991 refund bars annuity entitlement | He was mentally unstable when he resigned and could not validly waive annuity rights | Receipt of full refund extinguishes annuity rights under statute; no proof of incompetence | Swartwout failed to prove incompetence; refund bars annuity under 5 U.S.C. § 8342(a) |
| Whether Swartwout actually received the 1991 refund check | He has no recollection and claims nonreceipt | Agency records show voucher and issued check; no returned check on file | Record evidence outweighs unsupported claim; no proof of nonreceipt |
| Whether agency/counseling or misleading advice estops OPM from denying benefits | He alleges he was not counseled and was misled about consequences | Government cannot be estopped to pay benefits not authorized by law | Estoppel not available to confer benefits beyond statute (Richmond) |
| Whether procedural rulings (late filings, post-conference doc) prejudiced appellant | He claims late agency filings and late docs disadvantaged him | AJ acted within authority to develop the record and did not abuse discretion | No abuse of discretion; AJ’s docketing and evidentiary rulings upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) (Government cannot be estopped to award benefits not authorized by law)
- Yarbrough v. Office of Personnel Management, 770 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (mental incompetence can, if proved, invalidate a refund decision that would forfeit annuity rights)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court enforces statutory filing deadlines for review)