Full Opinion

Case: 26-1580 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 11/13/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BETTY VALDEZ, Petitioner v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent ______________________ 2026-1580 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DE-0831-24-0374-I-1. ______________________ Decided: November 13, 2026 ______________________ BETTY VALDEZ, Isleta, NM, pro se. ELINOR JOUNG KIM, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by STEVEN MICHAEL MAGER, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Case: 26-1580 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 11/13/2026 2 VALDEZ v. OPM Before LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit Judges, and PENNELL, District Judge. 1 PER CURIAM. This appeal involves Ms. Betty Valdez’s pro se petition seeking a review of a final order from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The final order affirmed the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s denial of Ms. Valdez’s claim for certain former spouse survivor annuity benefits. We af- firm. BACKGROUND Ms. Valdez was married to Mr. Cecil Eugene Abeita un- til their divorce on November 7, 1991. Appx30. 2 Mr. Abeita was a federal officer at the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Appx57. On November 7, 1991, the Bernalillo County, New Mexico Second Judicial District Court issued a “Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage” (“Divorce De- cree”), dissolving Mr. Abeita and Ms. Valdez’s marriage. Appx50. The Divorce Decree approved the “Marital Settle- ment Agreement” (“MSA”) entered into that same date, No- vember 7, 1991, which “settle[d] . . . all rights and obligations arising out of their marriage.” Appx50–51; Appx53. Relevant here, the MSA granted Ms. Valdez “[o]ne half interest in all pension and retirement benefits earned by Petitioner [Eugene Abeita] during coverture through his employment with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, including the annuity and Civil Service Retirement Plan, on a pay as it comes in basis.” Appx57. 1 The Honorable Rebecca L. Pennell, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 2 “Appx” refers to the corrected appendix attached to Respondent’s brief. Case: 26-1580 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 11/13/2026 VALDEZ v. OPM 3 On September 3, 2007, Mr. Abeita retired from federal service. Appx43. Mr. Abeita filed an “Application for Im- mediate Retirement”), i.e., a Standard Form 2801, with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), where he elected to provide Ms. Valdez with an annuity payable only during his lifetime. Id. OPM notified Mr. Abeita and Ms. Valdez that Ms. Valdez would start receiving monthly pay- ments reflecting a portion of Mr. Abeita’s “civil service re- tirement benefit.” Appx42. On May 22, 2023, Mr. Abeita passed away. Appx29. Ms. Valdez filed an “Application for Death Benefits” with OPM, seeking payment of survivor annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) as Mr. Abeita’s former spouse. Appx38–39; Appx32; Appx29. OPM denied Ms. Valdez’s application because Ms. Valdez and Mr. Abeita’s Divorce Decree did not “expressly award a former spouse survivor annuity” or “expressly state that you [Ms. Valdez] are entitled to, or direct the employee to provide, a former spouse survivor annuity using terms that are sufficient to identify the survivor annuity” as required by 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.804, 838.912. Appx32 (“Initial Deci- sion”). Ms. Valdez sought reconsideration of OPM’s Initial De- cision, arguing that the Divorce Decree “states [that] I’m entitled to receive my deceased ex husband’s pension.” Appx37. OPM affirmed its Initial Decision, explaining that the Divorce Decree was not a “qualifying” court order under the applicable regulations. Appx29–31 (“Reconsideration Decision”). Ms. Valdez appealed OPM’s Reconsideration Decision to the Merits System Protection Board (“MSPB” or Board”). Appx10. An administrative judge (“AJ”) at the Board af- firmed the Reconsideration Decision. Appx10–24 (“AJ Ini- tial Decision”). The AJ explained that the Spouse Equity Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h), allows for a former spouse, like Ms. Valdez, to receive a survivor annuity, “if and to the extent Case: 26-1580 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 11/13/2026 4 VALDEZ v. OPM expressly provided for . . . in the terms of any decree of di- vorce or annulment or any court order or court-approved property settlement agreement incident to such decree.” Appx12 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)). The AJ then looked to the Divorce Decree, and by extension the MSA, noting that the MSA awarded Ms. Valdez “[o]ne half interest in all pension and retirement benefits earned by Petitioner during coverture through his employment with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, including the annuity and Civil Service Retirement Plan, on a pay as it comes in basis.” Appx14 (quoting Appx57). The AJ determined that this language awarded Ms. Valdez a portion of Mr. Abeita’s “CSRS life- time annuity benefit, but not a survivor annuity.” Appx15. Ms. Valdez filed a petition for review of the AJ Initial Decision to the Board. Appx34–35. In the petition, Ms. Valdez argued that because she had already been re- ceiving a portion of Mr. Abeita’s pension while he was alive, this meant “OPM has already decided I was entitled to re- ceive my ex huband’s [sic] pension as stipulated in my 1991 divorce decree” for her lifetime, regardless of Mr. Abeita’s passing. Id. The Board agreed with the AJ that the Di- vorce Decree, including the MSA, contained no language that could be fairly read as awarding Ms. Valdez a survivor annuity. Appx2. The Board thus denied the petition for review and affirmed the AJ Initial Decision, which became the Board’s final decision. Id. (“Final Decision”). Ms. Valdez timely petitions for review of the Final De- cision. We have jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). DISCUSSION Our review of Board decisions is limited. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We set aside a Board decision only when it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other- wise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro- cedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence[.]” Id. We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo and its Case: 26-1580 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 11/13/2026 VALDEZ v. OPM 5 underlying findings of fact for substantial evidence. See, e.g., Welshans v United States Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 110, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a divorce decree, on its face, “expressly provided for” survivor annuity benefits under 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h) is a question of law we review de novo. See Fox v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 100 F.3d 141, 143 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that the Board AJ “erred at law when he concluded that the Agreement had not ‘expressly provided for’ a former spouse survivor annuity”). On appeal, Ms. Valdez argues that the Divorce Decree “states that [she] should recive [sic] ex-husband’s OPM pension upon his death.” Informal Appellant Br. at 3. Given Ms. Valdez’s pro se status, we liberally construe this statement as arguing that her Divorce Decree, including the MSA, provides her with a survivor annuity benefit. For the following reasons, we determine it does not. The Spouse Equity Act provides that: a former spouse of a deceased . . . annuitant . . . is entitled to a survivor annuity under this subsec- tion, if and to the extent expressly provided for . . . in the terms of any decree of divorce or annulment or any court order or court-approved property set- tlement agreement incident to such decree. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h) (emphasis added). “Magic words in a divorce decree or settlement are not necessary to establish a former spouse’s entitlement to collect a survivor annuity” under 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h). Fox, 100 F.3d at 143 (citation modified). Nonetheless, “[a]n award of a former spouse survivor annuity must be express” and “[t]his requirement is not a mere technicality; it provides for a clear allocation of rights between the interested parties.” Hokanson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 122 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (em- phasis added) (rejecting argument “that an award of ‘re- tirement benefits’ must be viewed as referring to a survivor annuity”). Case: 26-1580 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 11/13/2026 6 VALDEZ v. OPM Additionally, regulations require clarity from a court order, such as a divorce decree, for a former spouse to be awarded survivor annuity. A “court order awarding a for- mer spouse survivor annuity” is acceptable only if “it ex- pressly awards a former spouse survivor annuity.” 5 C.F.R. § 838.804(a) (emphasis added). In order to “expressly award” a survivor annuity, the court order must “[i]dentify the retirement system using terms that are sufficient to identify the retirement system as explained in [5 C.F.R.] § 838.911; 3 and [e]xpressly state that the former spouse is entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity using terms that are sufficient to identify the survivor annuity as ex- plained in [5 C.F.R.] § 838.912.” Id. §§ 838.804(b)(1)–(2). Under § 838.912, “[t]he court order must contain language such as ‘survivor annuity,’ ‘death benefits,’ ‘former spouse survivor annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8341(h)(1),’ etc.” 5 C.F.R. § 838.912(a). Here, the Divorce Decree, including the MSA, does not expressly provide for an award of survivor annuity to Ms. Valdez as required under 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h), 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.804(a), 838.911, and 838.912(a). These documents refer to the retirement system at issue, i.e., the Civil Ser- vice Retirement Plan, and refer to terms such as “pension,” “annuity,” and “retirement benefits.” See Appx52 (granting 3 5 C.F.R. § 838.911 provides, in relevant part, that: [t]o satisfy the requirements of § 838.804(b)(1), a court order must contain language identifying the retirement system affected. For example, “CSRS,” “FERS,” “OPM,” or “Federal Government” survivor benefits, or “survivor benefits payable based on ser- vice with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” etc., are sufficient identification of the retirement sys- tem. 5 C.F.R. § 838.911(a). Case: 26-1580 Document: 25 Page: 7 Filed: 11/13/2026 VALDEZ v. OPM 7 Ms. Valdez “[o]ne half interest in all pension and retire- ment benefits earned by Petitioner [Eugene Abeita] during coverture through his employment with the Bureau of In- dian Affairs, including the annuity and Civil Service Re- tirement Plan, on a pay as it comes in basis”). But these terms are general references to Mr. Abeita’s benefits and thus are not enough to expressly provide for survivor an- nuity. See, e.g., Hokanson, 122 F.3d at 1047; see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.804(b)(1)–(2), 5 C.F.R. § 838.912(a). The Di- vorce Decree and the MSA do not “expressly state that [Ms. Valdez] is entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity us- ing terms that are sufficient to identify the survivor annu- ity,” “such as ‘survivor annuity,’ ‘death benefits,’ [or] ‘former spouse survivor annuity.’” 5 C.F.R. § 838.912(a); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.804(b)(1)–(2). Rather, as the AJ con- cluded, and the Board correctly affirmed, these documents awarded Ms. Valdez a portion of Mr. Abeita’s “CSRS life- time annuity, but not a survivor annuity.” Appx15 (empha- sis added); see Appx2–3; see also Hokanson, 122 F.3d at 1047. While sympathetic to Ms. Valdez’s position, the statute and the regulations are clear. An award of survivor annu- ity to a former spouse must be expressly made. Thus, even though the Divorce Decree and the MSA provided Ms. Val- dez with a portion of Mr. Abeita’s retirement benefits dur- ing Mr. Abeita’s lifetime, the Divorce Decree and the MSA do not expressly provide for an award of survivor annuity benefits to Ms. Valdez upon Mr. Abeita’s death. We must affirm. CONCLUSION We have considered Ms. Valdez’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.