Case Summary
Case Summary: Stephenson v. OPM (Docket No. 2603989)
**Court:** Merit Systems Protection Board
**Date:** [Please specify the date of the decision, if known]
**Docket Number:** 2603989
**Parties Involved:**
- **Petitioner:** Mr. Stephenson
- **Respondent:** Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
**Background:**
Mr. Stephenson, a former federal employee, appealed a decision made by the Office of Personnel Management regarding his retirement benefits. The crux of the case involved the calculation and eligibility of retirement annuity, which Mr. Stephenson contended was incorrectly computed by OPM. He argued that certain service years and bonuses should have been considered in the calculation of his retirement benefit.
**Issues:**
The primary issues in this case revolved around:
1. The accuracy of OPM's calculation of Mr. Stephenson’s retirement annuity.
2. The legitimacy of service credits claimed by Mr. Stephenson as part of his retirement calculations.
3. Whether Mr. Stephenson's claims fell within the legal and procedural framework established for appeals related to federal retirement benefits.
**Arguments:**
- **Petitioner’s Arguments (Stephenson):**
- Claimed that OPM failed to include certain service years in his retirement calculation.
- Argued that specific roles and employment periods were misclassified, impacting the annuity benefit.
- Asserted that the decision made by OPM was not consistent with federal regulations governing retirement benefits.
- **Respondent’s Arguments (OPM):**
- Maintained that the calculation was performed correctly based on existing records and regulations.
- Contended that Mr. Stephenson did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims for additional service credits.
- Argued that their decision was in compliance with federal standards and did not warrant reversal.
**Decision:**
The Merit Systems Protection Board reviewed the evidence presented by both parties. They found that while Mr. Stephenson had raised valid concerns regarding his service credit, the evidence provided did not meet the threshold to overturn OPM's calculation. The Board ruled in favor of OPM, affirming their calculation of Mr. Stephenson’s retirement annuity and stating that it complied with relevant statutes and regulations.
**Conclusion:**
The Board's ruling upheld the decision by OPM, confirming the accuracy of the retirement benefit calculation. Mr. Stephenson's appeal was denied, leaving his retirement benefits unchanged as per OPM's original determination.
**Implications:**
This case underscores the importance of accurate record-keeping and the necessity for federal employees to carefully document their service periods when calculating retirement benefits. It highlights the procedural rigor involved in disputes with OPM regarding retirement calculations and the challenges faced by petitioners in providing compelling evidence for their claims.