[brief] In its brief, the Board asserts [...] is not entitled to an “honorable service” analysis pursuant to Uricoli v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, 91 N.J. 62 (1982).  Specifically, the Board argues Uricoli is inapplicable because that case involved an application for accidental disability retirement benefits and, even if Uricoli was applicable, the case is no longer current and is no longer applied in the manner it was at the time of the decision.  The Board’s argument misses the mark and is bewildering to say the least.  First, if this Honorable Court determines [...] is categorically ineligible for deferred retirement benefits as a matter of law, i.e. he was removed for charges of misconduct directly related to his employment, it is undisputed he would not be entitled to an honorable service analysis.  However, if this Honorable Court determines [...] was not removed for charges of misconduct directly related to his employment and, thus eligible to receive deferred retirement benefits, he is undoubtedly entitled to an honorable service analysis under the auspices of Uricoli.  Despite the Board’s assertions, Uricoli is not only applied in cases involving accidental disability retirement benefits.  Rather, Uricoli is the seminal case on pension forfeiture and the factors to be considered to determine whether a public employee should receive the full allotment of certain pension benefits or if any portion thereof is subject to forfeiture.  To this end, the Supreme Court’s decision in Uricoli “reaffirmed the rule that honorable service is an implicit requirement of every public pension statute, whether or not this conditional term appears in the particular statute. ”  Uricoli, 91 N.J. at 66.  To assist court and administrative bodies with implementation of a flexible test for pension forfeiture, the Supreme Court identified factors to be considered and balanced when applying that test to determine the reasonableness of pension forfeiture.  Id. at 77-78.  These factors were ultimately codified in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c).  In 2007, the Legislature added N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1, which sets forth certain **criminal convictions** that require **mandatory forfeiture** of a public employee’s pension benefits if they are convicted of the same.  State v. Anderson, 248 N.J. 53 (2021).  Simply put, the Uricoli or N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c) factors apply when mandatory absolute forfeiture is not required by N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1.  Id. at 73-74.  In other words, the factors for consideration contained in N.J.S.A.  43:1-3, which resemble those set forth in Uricoli, apply to public employee misconduct raising honorable service questions **outside of** circumstances involving convictions for which N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 requires mandatory and absolute forfeiture.  Ibid.  In this case, it is undisputed [...] was not criminally convicted for the incident at issue or any of the crimes set forth in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 that would require mandatory and absolute forfeiture of his pension benefits.  In fact, it is undisputed [...] was not convicted of any crimes whatsoever.  Therefore, mandatory and absolute forfeiture of [...]’s pension benefits is not required assuming he is eligible for the same.  As such, if this Honorable Court determines [...] is eligible for deferred retirement benefits as a matter of law, he is certainly entitled to an “honorable service” or Uricoli analysis to determine whether any portion of the same are subject to forfeiture.  As such, the Board’s assertions as to the scope and viability of Uricoli are legally erroneous, altogether bewildering, and must be rejected.  **CONCLUSION**