Aldrich v. Office of Personnel Management , 166 F. App'x 481 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                    NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
    is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    05-3295
    BRENDA ELLEN ALDRICH,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
    Respondent.
    ___________________________
    DECIDED: January 11, 2006
    ___________________________
    Before RADER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
    RADER, Circuit Judge.
    The Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board) affirmed the Office of Personnel
    Management’s (OPMs) denial of Brenda E. Aldrich’s application for Civil Service
    Retirement System (CSRS) survivor benefits. Because the Board did not err when it
    concluded that Ms. Aldrich’s pre-May 7, 1985 divorce date made her ineligible for
    survivor benefits, this court affirms.
    BACKGROUND
    Ms. Aldrich divorced Richard Atomanuk by order of a Vermont court dated
    April 28, 1983. At the time of his death in 1999, Mr. Atomanuk was an employee of the
    Postal Service. After his death, Ms. Aldrich applied for CSRS survivor benefits. OPM
    denied those benefits and Ms. Aldrich appealed that denial to the Board. Before the
    Board, Ms. Aldrich argued that she was entitled to survivor benefits by virtue of an
    amended court order dated October 1, 1987, which required Mr. Atomanuk to pay child
    support. The Board rejected that argument because Ms. Aldrich and Mr. Atomanuk
    divorced prior to May 7, 1985, and the relevant rule extends survivor benefits, where
    those benefits are provided by court order, only in the case of marriages that ended on
    or after May 7, 1985. Ms. Aldrich appeals.
    DISCUSSION
    This court possesses limited authority to review a Board decision. The Board’s
    decision must be affirmed unless it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
    or otherwise not in accordance with the law; (2) obtained without procedures required
    by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial
    evidence. 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (c) (2000); Kievenaar v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 
    421 F.3d 1359
    , 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005).       Issues of statutory and regulatory construction are
    reviewed without deference.      Kievenaar, 
    421 F.3d at
    1362 (citing Billings v. United
    States, 
    322 F.3d 1328
    , 1332 (Fed.Cir.2003)).
    Prior to enactment of the Spouse Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-615, 
    98 Stat. 3195
     (codified as various amended sections throughout 5 U.S.C.), a former spouse had
    no right to survivor benefits under the CSRS. See Vallee v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 
    58 F.3d 613
    , 614-15 (Fed. Cir. 1995).       Effective May 7, 1985, the Spouse Equity Act
    provided entitlement to a survivor annuity to the extent “expressly provided for . . . in the
    terms of any decree of divorce or annulment or any court order or court-approved
    property settlement agreement incident to such decree.” 
    5 U.S.C. § 8341
     (h)(1) (2000).
    
    5 C.F.R. § 838.802
    (a) implements the effective date of the Spouse Equity Act where
    05-3295                                      2
    benefits are sought based on court order in connection with a divorce, i.e., the basis for
    Ms. Aldrich’s claim. That OPM regulation states:
    A court order awarding a former spouse survivor annuity
    under CSRS is not a court order acceptable for processing
    unless the marriage terminated on or after May 7, 1985.
    
    5 C.F.R. § 838.802
    (a) (2005) (emphasis added). The Board based its decision affirming
    OPM in this case on that rule.
    Notwithstanding 
    5 C.F.R. § 838.802
    (a), Ms. Aldrich argues that the Board erred
    because it ignored Vallee, in which provisions of the Spouse Equity Act were held to
    apply to a CSRS retiree whose divorce occurred prior to May 7, 1985. Vallee, 
    58 F.3d at 614
    . In Vallee, this court explained that a retiree must be given notice of his ability to
    provide a survivor annuity to a former spouse. Vallee at 615. Thus, Vallee did not
    address a situation where a former spouse sought benefits as a result of a divorce-
    related court order. Instead, Vallee concerned the notice that must be given to a retiree
    regarding his ability to confer benefits to a former spouse regardless of when the
    marriage ended.      In this case, had Mr. Atomanuk retired before his death, he
    presumably would have been advised of that option.              Contrary to Ms. Aldrich’s
    arguments, Vallee is not relevant to her situation because her situation does not involve
    a retiree who may have intended to provide a survivor annuity to a former spouse. Mr.
    Atomanuk was never a retiree. Instead, Ms. Aldrich’s situation fits squarely within 5
    C.F.R. 838.802(a): she is attempting to obtain survivor benefits by virtue of a divorce-
    related court order. Because Ms. Aldrich’s divorce occurred prior to May 7, 1985, the
    effective date of the Spouse Equity Act, there is no statutory basis for awarding her
    survivor benefits. The fact that Mr. Atomanuk could have provided a survivor annuity to
    05-3295                                      3
    Ms. Aldrich had he retired before he died does not have any bearing on Ms. Aldrich’s
    claim. The Board did not err in its application of 
    5 C.F.R. § 838.802
    (a) in this case.
    Therefore, this court affirms.
    05-3295                                   4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2005-3295

Citation Numbers: 166 F. App'x 481

Judges: Bryson, Linn, Rader

Filed Date: 1/11/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023