Retirement – Purchase of service – Invoice

Listen to this article

Where a petitioner failed to timely pay her invoice in 2011 when she applied to purchase her contract service, a decision by the State Board of Retirement denying her request to reopen her contract service bill should be upheld because the petitioner had an opportunity to purchase her service and did not do so in a timely manner.

“The Petitioner, Sharyn McCaughey, timely appealed a decision by the State Board of Retirement (Board) denying her request to reopen her contract service bill. The Board filed a motion for Summary Decision. …

“In 2011, she filed an application to purchase her contract service. In October 2011, the Board approved her application and sent her a bill. The bill was significant: $21,224.12. She was given the option to pay it in full or enter into a payment plan. …

“Ms. McCaughey could not afford to pay this bill, either as a lump sum or through a payment plan. She asked the Board for more time or to buy back less years, but the Board denied that request. …

“Thus, she did not pay the invoice. …

“At some point in 2025, Ms. McCaughey contacted the Board asking if it could reopen her bill. The Board denied her request because the 180-day deadline to pay the original bill from October 2011 had expired. …

“The Petitioner does not dispute that she failed to timely pay her invoice in 2011 when she applied to purchase her contract service. Her request to reopen her bill 15 years later was based on equitable principles — that she was unable to pay that much money at that time. I sympathize with the Petitioner’s situation; the bill was indeed large, and many people would struggle to pay that amount. However, the only issue before me is whether she had an opportunity to purchase her service and did or did not do so in a timely manner. A member who requests to buyback contract service must pay it in full, or enter into an installment plan, within 180 days after notification. G.L.c. 32, §4(1)(s); 941 Code of Mass. Regs., §2.09(5)(b). The Petitioner did neither.

“The Petitioner argues this is not fair because the state would not cooperate with her and she has health challenges that will make it hard for her to work enough to make up that time. That may be true, but ‘I am unable to grant [the Petitioner] anything “beyond what the retirement law provides.”’ …

“The Board’s motion for summary decision is granted and the Board’s decision is [allowed].”

McCaughey v. State Board of Retirement (Lawyers Weekly No. 27-057-26) (3 pages) (Tennen, Administrative Magistrate) (Division of Administrative Law Appeals) Sharyn McCaughey, pro se; Yande Lombe for the respondent (Docket No. CR-25-0214) (April 24, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.