Nataliya Rakowsky v. Office of Personnel Management
Background
- The annuitant retired under CSRS in 1986 and initially elected a survivor annuity for his then-spouse; after that spouse died, OPM restored his full annuity rate.
- He remarried the appellant on February 5, 1997, and later designated her as beneficiary on SF-2823 and SF-2808 for life insurance and lump-sum death benefits.
- He sent OPM a copy of the marriage certificate in May 2010. He died June 27, 2013; the appellant filed for a survivor annuity which OPM denied and reaffirmed on reconsideration.
- The Board’s administrative judge held a hearing and found no signed writing received by OPM within two years of the remarriage that manifested an unmistakable intent to elect a survivor annuity; thus no legally effective election was made.
- The AJ found OPM met its burden to prove it sent the statutorily required annual notices (1997 and 1998) and the appellant failed to show nonreceipt. The Board denied review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the annuitant made a legally effective survivor-annuity election after remarriage | Rakowsky: annuitant manifested intent to provide survivor annuity | OPM: no signed writing received within 2 years after marriage showing unmistakable intent | Held: No effective election; intent without a signed writing received by OPM is insufficient under 5 U.S.C. § 8339(j) |
| Whether OPM satisfied its statutory annual-notice obligation | Rakowsky: OPM’s record-keeping errors and typographical mistakes show mishandling and possible nonreceipt | OPM: affidavit and copies of notices prove it sent legally sufficient annual notices in 1997–98 | Held: OPM met its burden to show notices were sent and their contents; appellant failed to rebut presumed delivery |
| Whether designation on SF-2808/SF-2823 or OPM’s failure to send an election form establishes an election | Rakowsky: SF forms and OPM’s alleged failure to send an election form prove entitlement | OPM: no legal requirement to send an election form; SF designations for lump-sum life benefits do not satisfy survivor-annuity election requirements | Held: SF designations and lack of a form do not constitute a valid statutory election |
| Whether newly submitted evidence (letters, medical records) warrants relief | Rakowsky: post-decision evidence shows intent and mental incapacity issues | OPM: evidence was already in/immaterial or untimely and would not change outcome | Held: Evidence not new or, if considered, immaterial to legal election requirement; no basis to overturn decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel Management, 791 F.2d 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (burden of proof for entitlement to retirement benefits)
- Schoemakers v. Office of Personnel Management, 180 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (OPM affidavit can satisfy burden showing annual notices sent)
- Brush v. Office of Personnel Management, 982 F.2d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (statutory requirement for OPM to notify annuitants of survivor-election rights)
- Simpson v. Office of Personnel Management, 347 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (limitations on sufficiency of general notice in differing factual context)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (appellate filing deadlines are strictly enforced)