NL: Notices, Letters and Paragraphs
TN 60 (12-12)
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:
|
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:
Fill-ins:
|
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.
Please read the enclosed pamphlet, "Your Right to Question the Decision Made on Your Social Security Claim." It contains more information about the appeal. |