Case: 21-2036 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 01/18/2022

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GARY P. THOMPSON, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________

2021-2036 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF-0752-21-0019-I-1. ______________________

Decided: January 18, 2022 ______________________

GARY P. THOMPSON, Gig Harbor, WA, pro se.

ELIZABETH WARD FLETCHER, Office of General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by TRISTAN L. LEAVITT, KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. ______________________

Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Case: 21-2036 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 01/18/2022

2 THOMPSON v. MSPB

Gary Paul Thompson appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. I Mr. Thompson worked for the Department of the Navy as a Sheet Metal Work Leader. He applied for disability retirement with the Office of Personnel Management, which approved his application on August 27, 2018. OPM awarded Mr. Thompson a 60% disability computation that is only available to applicants aged 62 or under, even though Mr. Thompson was 69 years old at the time of his application. OPM started sending payments to Mr. Thomp- son in September 2018. Mr. Thompson, seemingly aware of this mistake, called OPM several times in the first week of September 2018 to verify he could accept the payments. OPM assured Mr. Thompson that there would be no prob- lems and told him to “relax and enjoy retirement.” S.A. 2. 1 On February 19, 2019, OPM notified Mr. Thompson that the payments he had received were erroneous and that OPM had overpaid him $5,432.48. Mr. Thompson first filed a claim against OPM in Gary P. Thompson v. OPM, No. SF- 0845-19-0702-I-1 (M.S.P.B. July 20, 2019), challenging OPM’s assessment of an overpayment. Mr. Thompson and OPM subsequently settled, terminating the appeal. S.A. 22–23. Mr. Thompson then filed a claim against his employing agency, the Navy, on October 8, 2020, alleging that his dis- ability retirement was involuntary because OPM had mis- represented his retirement benefits. In response, the Navy pointed out that Mr. Thompson “placed responsibility for his involuntary retirement on misinformation, not from his employing agency, [the Navy,] but from the OPM.” S.A. 9.

1 S.A. refers to the supplemental appendix attached to the Respondent’s brief. Case: 21-2036 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 01/18/2022

THOMPSON v. MSPB 3

The Board dismissed Mr. Thompson’s appeal, determining that the record was devoid of any evidence that the retire- ment was the product of (1) misinformation or deception by the Navy or (2) coercion by the Navy. S.A. 9–10 (citing Terban v. Dep’t of Energy, 216 F.3d 1021, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Board concluded that “without a nonfrivolous allegation that a Navy agency official gave [Mr. Thompson] misinformation, [Mr. Thompson] cannot . . . show that his retirement was involuntary.” S.A. 10. Mr. Thompson appeals. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). II We set aside a Board decision only if it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac- cordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re- quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We review de novo the Board’s conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction. Bryant v. MSPB, 878 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017). III While the Board has jurisdiction over involuntary re- movals, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512(1), 7513(d), an employee’s deci- sion to retire is “presumed voluntary” unless the employee “comes forward with sufficient evidence to establish that the . . . [retirement] was involuntarily extracted.” Rosario- Fabregas v. MSPB, 833 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Garcia v. Dep’t of Home- land Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc)). To establish that retirement was involuntary, the em- ployee must show that the retirement “was the product of (1) misinformation or deception by the agency or (2) coer- cion by the agency.” Id. Mr. Thompson has not produced evidence that the Navy misinformed, deceived, or coerced Mr. Thompson into Case: 21-2036 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 01/18/2022

4 THOMPSON v. MSPB

retiring. In fact, Mr. Thompson stated he has “no issues” with the Navy but has “a lot of issues” with OPM. S.A. 8– 9. Because this appeal is against the Navy, not OPM, Mr. Thompson has not overcome the presumption that his retirement was voluntary, and the Board does not have ju- risdiction. IV Because Mr. Thompson did not allege facts supporting the Board’s jurisdiction, we affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS

No costs.