Wanda Mota v. Office of Personnel Management, AT-831M-17-0100-X-1

Background

Wanda D. Mota appealed OPM's determination that she received a CSRS disability annuity overpayment and that her waiver request was denied. Initial alleged overpayment: $14,435.82.
An administrative judge (AJ) vacated OPM's overpayment calculation for failing to meet its burden and remanded, ordering OPM to recompute annuity amounts using two possible commencement dates (separation date and last day of pay/OWCP termination), notify Mota, allow her to elect a commencement date, and, if an overpayment resulted, permit contest/waiver/compromise/payment options.
Mota filed a petition for enforcement claiming she had not received OPM correspondence; the AJ granted enforcement and ordered OPM to explain compliance status.
OPM submitted annuity election letters (March 2018, August 2018, and September 26, 2019) and, later, Mota’s completed election form (Oct. 29, 2019). OPM’s corrected figures: commencing at separation = $2,712 monthly and $23,019.25 overpayment; commencing at last day of pay = $2,473 monthly and $1,571.85 underpayment.
The Board found OPM had taken the ordered steps, Mota did not challenge the evidence of compliance, and therefore dismissed her petition for enforcement as OPM was in compliance. The decision is nonprecedential (May 19, 2023).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OPM complied with the Board's remand order	Mota alleged she received no correspondence and enforcement was needed	OPM produced annuity election letters and the appellant's completed election form showing it provided the required notices and options	OPM complied with the Board's order; petition for enforcement dismissed
Whether the Board may assume compliance when the appellant does not challenge agency evidence	Mota argued she had not been contacted	OPM argued its submissions (letters and election form) show compliance; absence of challenge means evidence stands	Board applied Baumgartner: absent a challenge, it may assume the appellant is satisfied and treat agency submissions as proof of compliance
Whether OPM’s failure to document offering contest/waiver/payment options defeats a finding of compliance	Mota asserted she had not been afforded required post-election options	OPM did not supply documentary evidence of offering contest/waiver/payment options but submitted evidence of the core remand actions	The Board acknowledged OPM did not provide that specific evidence but, because Mota did not contest compliance on that point, it did not preclude finding overall compliance
Whether the Board’s compliance decision is final and appealable	Mota sought enforcement of the prior final decision	OPM maintained it had satisfied the AJ’s remand instructions	The Board issued a final, nonprecedential compliance decision and explained appeal rights (court review options per statute and Perry)

Key Cases Cited

Baumgartner v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 111 M.S.P.R. 86 (2009) (Board may assume compliance where appellant does not challenge agency's evidence of compliance)
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017) (jurisdictional guidance re: discrimination claims and district court review)