TN 60 (12-12)

NL 00703.966 Petersen Acquiescence Ruling (AR) Notices

A. Title II Petersen informational notice

This is the exhibit of the Petersen AR one-time informational notice. This notice alerts potential Title II beneficiaries about their right to request readjudication of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) determination.

  

Social Security Administration
Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Important Information   

   

Payment Center Name:
Address:
Claim Number: 

  

Payee/Beneficiary Name
Address

IMPORTANT – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

We may be able to increase your Social Security benefits because of a recent court decision. On February 3, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided the case of Petersen v. Astrue.

In Petersen v. Astrue, the court found that the civilian work of a National Guard dual status technician is service as a member of a uniformed service. This court’s decision means that the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) does not apply if all of the following are true:

  • Your Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension is based wholly on service as a dual status technician for the National Guard.

  • We made our decision to apply the WEP in your claim on or after February 3, 2011.

  • You were living permanently in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota at the time of our earlier decision.

A dual status civilian technician in the National Guard is also a military member of the National Guard. This court’s decision does not apply to beneficiaries whose CSRS pension is based on work as a “non-dual” status technician.

You Must Ask Us To Review Our Earlier Decision

We will make a new decision about the payment of your Social Security benefits only if you request a review.

Please contact your local Social Security office and request a review of your record if you would like us to make a new decision about your benefits.

If you contact us, you need to give us the name of the court decision, which is Petersen v. Astrue. We may also ask you for other information to help us decide whether we can change our prior decision.

When We Will Make A New Decision About Your Benefits

We will make a new decision about the payment of your Social Security benefits only if:

  • You request a review, and

  • We decide that the Petersen v. Astrue ruling could change our prior decision.

Legal Representation

If you have an attorney or someone else helping you with your case, you should contact him or her. You should also give him or her a copy of this notice.

If You Have Any Questions

We invite you to visit our website at www.socialsecurity.gov on the Internet to find general information about Social Security. If you have any specific questions, you may call us toll-free at 1-800-772-1213, or call your local Social Security office at [Phone]. We can answer most questions over the phone. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you may call our TTY number, 1-800-325-0778. You can also write or visit any Social Security office. The office that serves your area is located at:

[SSA Field Office address]

If you do call or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It will help us answer your questions. Also, if you plan to visit an office, you may call ahead to make an appointment. This will help us serve you more quickly when you arrive at the office  

SI USTED HABLA ESPANOL

Si usted habla español y no entiende esta carta, por favor llame o visite su oficina local de Seguro Social. Un representante de la oficina de Seguro Social le explicará esta carta. Debe informarle que usted está respondiendo al aviso, Petersen v. Astrue.

B. Title II Petersen AR notice paragraphs

Field offices (FO) should use the following approved paragraphs in Petersen cases. They are available in the Document Processing System (DPS) under “General.”

1. Title II Petersen readjudication approval paragraph

Notice System

UTI Number

Language

DPS

WEP005

You asked us to look at the earlier decision we made on (1) claim to see if the Petersen v. Astrue ruling could change our decision. We are changing our earlier decision.

Based on the ruling, we should not have used the Windfall Elimination Provision to figure (2) Social Security benefit.

We will send you a separate letter that tells you the amount of (3) benefits and when you will receive them.

Fill-ins:

  1. Choice 1 – your

    Choice 2 – Beneficiary’s name (possessive)

  2. Choice 1 – your

    Choice 2 – his

    Choice 3 – her

  3. Choice 1 – your

    Choice 2 – his

    Choice 3 – her

2. Title II Petersen readjudication denial paragraph

Notice System

UTI Number

Language

DPS

WEP006

You asked us to look at our earlier decision on (1) Social Security claim to see if the Petersen v. Astrue ruling could change our decision. We are not changing our earlier decision, because (2). Our earlier decision remains the final decision of the agency in (3) case.

For the Petersen v. Astrue ruling to apply to __(4)__ case, __(5)__had to:

  • Receive a pension based wholly on service as a dual status National Guard technician, and

  • Live permanently in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota at the time of our earlier decision, and

  • Receive a decision to figure a retirement or disability benefit using the Windfall Elimination Provision that was made on or after February 3, 2011

Fill-ins:

  1. Choice 1 – your

    Choice 2 – Beneficiary’s name (possessive)

  2. Choice 1 – we made our earlier decision before February 3, 2011. This date is when the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision in Petersen v. Astrue

    Choice 2 – [you were /he was/she] was not living permanently in any of the States in the Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota) at the time of our earlier decision

    Choice 3 - :

    • we made our earlier decision before February 3, 2011. This is the date the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision in Petersen v. Astrue; and

    • [you were/he was/she was] not living permanently in any of the States in the Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota) at the time of our earlier decision

    Choice 4 – [you do/he does/she does] not receive a Civil Service Retirement System pension based wholly on service as a dual status National Guard technician

  3. Choice 1 – your

    Choice 2 – his

    Choice 3 – her

  4. Choice 1 – your

    Choice 2 – his

    Choice 3 – her

  5. Choice 1 – you

    Choice 2 – he

    Choice 3 – she

3. Title II Petersen appeal rights paragraph for a prior decision made before the readjudication denial

Notice System

UTI Number

Language

DPS

ALS198

If you do not agree with our earlier decision, you have the right to appeal. We will review your case and consider any new facts you have. A person who did not make the first decision will decide your case. We will correct any mistakes. We will review those parts of the decision which you believe are wrong and will look at any new facts you have. We may also review those parts which you believe are correct and may make them unfavorable or less favorable to you.

  • You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.

  • The 60 days start the day after you get this letter. We assume you got this letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that you did not get it within the 5-day period.

  • You must have a good reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask for an appeal.

  • You have to ask for an appeal in writing. We will ask you to sign a Form SSA-561-U2, called "Request for Reconsideration." Contact one of our offices if you want help.

Please read the enclosed pamphlet, "Your Right to Question the Decision Made on Your Social Security Claim." It contains more information about the appeal.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0900703966
NL 00703.966 - Petersen Acquiescence Ruling (AR) Notices - 01/03/2013
Batch run: 01/03/2013
Rev:01/03/2013