Clarita S. Leonor, Petitioner, v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Respondent, 975 F.2d 869 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore LOURIE, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Clarita S. Leonor seeks review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision, Docket No. SE08319110407. The Board dismissed Mrs. Leonor's appeal of the Office of Personnel Management's denial of her husband's application for an annuity. This court affirms.
OPINION
On November 30, 1990, the Office of Personnel Management denied Eduardo A. Leonor's application for an annuity. On February 26, 1991, OPM denied Mr. Leonor's request for reconsideration of his application. OPM's reconsideration decision notified Mr. Leonor of the 25-day time limit for appeals to the Board.
On May 14, 1991, Mrs. Clarita Leonor filed* an appeal with the Board on behalf of her husband. Because Mrs. Leonor stated that her husband was incapacitated, the Board substituted her as the proper party. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.35 (1992). Because the appeal deadline had passed over two months earlier, OPM requested dismissal.
On June 18, 1991, the Board ordered Mrs. Leonor to show good cause for her untimely filing. Mrs. Leonor did not respond until August 29, 1991. The administrative judge had already dismissed Mrs. Leonor's appeal on August 14, 1991. The Board adopted the administrative judge's decision.
The sole issue before this court is whether the Board abused its discretion by not allowing Mrs. Leonor to waive the time limit for appeal to the Board. This court has stated:
Whether the regulatory time limit for an appeal should be waived in a particular case is a matter committed to the board's discretion and this court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the board.
Phillips v. United States Postal Serv., 695 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1982).
Mrs. Leonor's response to the show cause order, the letter dated August 29, 1991, argued the merits of her case. It showed no good cause for untimely filing. Mrs. Leonor's response itself was over one month late. Mrs. Leonor has presented no evidence of good cause nor of an abuse of discretion by the Board. This court therefore affirms.
An appeal sent by mail is deemed filed on the postmark date of the mailing. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(1)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
