Notes of Decisions
Ronald Moulton v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 2023 MSPB 26 (MSPB 2023).
· cites it 12× “OPM concluded that it is required under 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (c) and the terms of the domestic relations court order to include the appellant’s FERS annuity supplement in the computation of the court-ordered division of his FERS annuity, and that this determination did not involve a…”
Michael J Phillips v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. NY-0843-23-0092-I-1 (MSPB Feb. 24, 2025).
· cites it 5× “Specifically, OPM explained that, because the April 1, 2014 Domestic Relations Order awarded the appellant’s former spouse a “prorata share” of the appellant’s FERS annuity, OPM was required by 5 U.”
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Weichert, No. 2019-0735 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2020).
· cites it 4× “at ¶ 12 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (c)). Basic annuity payments can be paid to a person other than the retiree “if and to the extent provided for in the terms of [] any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation, or the terms of any court order or court-approved…”
Omar Hechavarria v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. AT-0841-19-0741-I-1 (MSPB Apr. 30, 2024).
· cites it 4× “On review, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s reliance on 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (a) and argues that she should have applied 5 C.”
Opm v. Moulton, 155 F.4th 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
· cites it 4× “1 This case presents a purely legal question of statutory interpretation—whether, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8421 (c) and 8467(a), OPM apportions the annuity supplement only when the terms of a court order (e.”
Pybas v. Opm, No. 20-1177 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2020).
· cites it 2× “Pybas was not entitled to a FERS annuity supplement under 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (a)(1). J.A. 19. Mr. Pybas appealed OPM’s decision to the Merit Sys- tem Protection Board.”
Carla Dixon-Johnson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0842-22-0224-I-1 (MSPB Mar. 13, 2024).
· cites it 2× “Under 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (a), only an individual entitled to an immediate retirement annuity under section 8412(a), (b), (d), (e), and (f), or an early retirement annuity under section 8414(a), (b), and (c), is entitled to a FERS annuity supplement.”
Michael O'Toole v. Dep't of Def., No. CH-0752-17-0586-I-1 (MSPB May 9, 2024).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to a February 2018 report (Management Advisory) from its Office of the Inspector General (OIG), OPM opines that 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (c), which provides that an annuity supplement “shall, for purposes of section 8467 [court orders], be treated in the same way as an amount…”
Dixon-Johnson v. Opm, No. 24-1716 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2024).
· cites it 2× “By way of background, under 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (a)(1) and (a)(2), an individual who is entitled to a FERS annuity under certain provisions is “also .”
Richard Young v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. PH-831M-19-0459-I-1 (MSPB Jan. 21, 2026).
· cites it 2× “OPM’s reconsideration decision relied on 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (c) to find that OPM “must include [his Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS)] annuity supplement in the computation of the court-ordered division of [his] FERS annuity.”
Griswold v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 589 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Gris-wold’s military service from his annuity supplement calculation pursuant to the plain language of 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (b)(4)(C), the relevant OPM regulations, and case law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.