McDaniel v. Office of Personnel Management , 168 F. App'x 419 ( 2006 )

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
05-3224
SAMUEL G. MCDANIEL,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: February 15, 2006
__________________________
Before RADER, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Samuel G. McDaniel petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that affirmed the denial by the Office of Personnel
Management (“OPM”) of his application for disability retirement as untimely. McDaniel
v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-04-0084-I-1 (M.S.P.B. May 16, 2005). We affirm.
DISCUSSION
I.
Mr. McDaniel was employed by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) until
he was separated from his position in September 1995.
In March 2003, Mr. McDaniel filed a petition for disability benefits with OPM. In a
May 27, 2003 letter, OPM (i) explained that a disability retirement application must be
filed within one year of separation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8337(b); (ii) noted that the
time can only be waived if the employee is mentally incompetent on the date of
separation or within one year thereafter; and (iii) requested that Mr. McDaniel submit
medical information establishing that he was mentally incompetent from September 5,
1995, through September 1996. Mr. McDaniel did not submit any evidence of mental
incompetence, so on July 17, 2003, OPM dismissed Mr. McDaniel’s claim as untimely.
Mr. McDaniel sought reconsideration of OPM’s decision, but he did not provide any new
documentation. On October 29, 2003, OPM affirmed its initial decision.
Mr. McDaniel timely appealed to the Board. On May 5, 2004, the administrative
judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was assigned issued an initial decision affirming
OPM’s dismissal. McDaniel v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-04-0084-I-1
(M.S.P.B. May 5, 2004). The AJ concluded that Mr. McDaniel did not meet his burden
of proof that he was unable to handle his personal affairs because of mental disease or
injury. On the contrary, the AJ found that the evidence demonstrated that during the
entire time of his period of separation, Mr. McDaniel had been participating in legal
processes that required him to file documents and meet deadlines, and that he had
been in enrolled in community college. The AJ thus affirmed OPM’s dismissal. That
05-3224 2
decision became final on May 16, 2005. McDaniel v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-
0831-04-0084-I-1 (M.S.P.B. May 16, 2005). This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II.
Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited.
Specifically, we must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find it to be arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained
without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000); Kewley v. Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A Board decision is
unsupported by substantial evidence when it lacks “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).
The Board did not err in affirming OPM’s denial of Mr. McDaniel’s application for
disability retirement as untimely. It is undisputed that Mr. McDaniel was separated from
his position with the USPS in September 1995 and that he did not file a petition for
disability benefits with OPM until March 2003. Thus, the application was not filed within
one year of the date that Mr. McDaniel was separated from service. Section 8337(b)
states that a claim for disability retirement “may be allowed under this section only if the
application is filed with the Office before the employee or Member is separated from the
service or within 1 year thereafter.” 5 U.S.C. § 8337(b) (2000). Under these
circumstances, the application is untimely. This time limitation may be waived only if an
employee is, at the date of separation from service or within 1 year thereafter, mentally
05-3224 3
incompetent. Id. There is no basis to waive the time limitation, as Mr. McDaniel has not
provided any evidence that at the date of his separation or within one year thereafter he
was mentally incompetent. The OPM therefore did not err in denying Mr. McDaniel’s
application for disability retirement, see Deerinwater v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 78 F.3d
570, 573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that OPM lacks the authority to consider an untimely
application), and the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, see
McLaughlin v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 353 F.3d 1363, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding
that the Board’s decision that the employee did not prove mental incompetence during
the statutory period was supported by substantial evidence).
For the foregoing reasons, the final decision of the Board is affirmed.
No costs.
05-3224 4