Debra Vinson v. United States Postal Service
Background
- Appellant (postal employee since 1975) retired June 30, 2009, electing FERS; OPM later calculated her monthly annuity at $1,821. She sought a higher annuity based on earlier estimates.
- Appellant had been erroneously enrolled in FERS earlier and was later given multiple opportunities/elections between FERS and CSRS Offset (2006 election to remain in FERS).
- Agency/OPM provided several annuity estimates (including an August 22, 2008 estimate showing a $3,259 CSRS amount that did not contain the appellant’s identifying information, and October 2006/September 2006 estimates showing other figures).
- Appellant alleges she relied on agency misinformation (particularly the August 22, 2008 estimate) and that this rendered her retirement involuntary.
- Administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of Board jurisdiction, finding the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that she reasonably relied on material agency misinformation.
- MSPB denied the petition for review, affirming dismissal: reliance on the August 2008 estimate was unreasonable because the document contained incorrect personally identifiable information and did not appear to pertain to the appellant; other estimates did not change the jurisdictional outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MSPB has jurisdiction over alleged involuntary retirement obtained by agency misinformation | Vinson: retirement involuntary because she relied on agency-provided misinformation in annuity estimates | USPS/OPM: appellant failed to make nonfrivolous allegations showing misinformation induced retirement | MSPB: No jurisdiction — appellant did not nonfrivolously allege both material misinformation and reasonable reliance |
| Whether reliance on the Aug. 22, 2008 annuity estimate was reasonable | Vinson: she relied on that estimate (showed much higher CSRS amount) and assumed it applied despite prior agency errors | Agency: the document contained incorrect name/SSN/birthdate and other discrepancies; reliance was not reasonable | Held: Reliance was not objectively reasonable because the estimate lacked appellant’s personal identifiers and reflected different pay/position |
| Whether the August 2008 estimate was material to her decision to retire | Vinson: the estimate showed a materially higher annuity, so it was material | Agency: the estimate did not pertain to her and thus was not material | Held: Not material in context because it did not appear to be created for the appellant; insufficient facts to show materiality |
| Whether other estimates (e.g., Sept./Oct. 2006) support involuntariness | Vinson: other OPM/agency estimates (e.g., $2,350 FERS in 2006) show inconsistent information she relied on | Agency: those documents do not establish reliance on material misinformation or alter jurisdictional analysis | Held: Even acknowledging some other estimates existed, appellant stated she relied on the August 2008 document; other estimates do not change the lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington v. Department of Health & Human Services, 750 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (misinformation or deception by agency can render retirement involuntary if employee reasonably relied to her detriment)
- Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security, 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (nonfrivolous factual allegations entitle a claimant to a jurisdictional hearing)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court enforces statutory filing deadlines for appeals)