Background
Ricky Bruce Tobias applied for federal disability-retirement benefits, but the Office of Personnel Management issued a final decision denying his application. On March 9, 2024, the U.S. Postal Service attempted to deliver OPM’s decision to Tobias’s address and left a notice stating that the letter was available for pickup. Tobias did not retrieve it, and the letter was returned to OPM. The decision stated that any appeal had to be filed within 30 calendar days after receipt.
More than a year later, Tobias contacted OPM about his application. OPM responded on April 24, 2025, enclosed a copy of its March 2024 final decision, and referred the matter to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Tobias filed his Board appeal on April 29, 2025, asserting that the April correspondence provided his first actual notice of OPM’s decision. An administrative judge dismissed the appeal as untimely under the Board’s constructive-receipt regulation, and the decision became final on February 26, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential per curiam opinion. The court held that actual notice was not required before the appeal period began. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(3), an agency decision properly mailed to an appellant’s address of record may be deemed received, and an appellant cannot avoid service through intentional or negligent conduct that frustrates actual delivery. Tobias offered no explanation for failing to retrieve the letter after USPS left notice at his door.
The court also rejected Tobias’s due-process argument because OPM mailed the decision to the same address at which he later received correspondence, USPS left notice of the attempted delivery, and Tobias waited more than a year to follow up. Those circumstances provided constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. Equitable tolling was unavailable because Tobias did not show diligence or any extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing, leaving his appeal 386 days late.
Key Takeaways
- A properly addressed agency decision sent by postal mail may be treated as received even when the appellant does not retrieve it.
- Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform the affected person, not proof of actual notice in every case.
- Equitable tolling requires both diligent pursuit of rights and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that federal employees and retirement applicants must promptly retrieve and act on agency correspondence. Failure to collect properly addressed mail generally will not postpone an MSPB appeal deadline without a persuasive explanation.
It also illustrates that promptly filing after learning of a decision does not, by itself, establish equitable tolling when the claimant cannot account for the earlier delay or identify an extraordinary obstacle to timely filing.