Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01244/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto A. Mata
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERTO A. MATA,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1244

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-15-0397-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 13, 2016

______________________ 

ROBERTO A. MATA, San Narciso, Zambales, Philippines, pro se.

MICHAEL DUANE AUSTIN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSHMAN, JR., 

CLAUDIA BURKE. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, PLAGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1244 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2016
2 MATA v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

 Roberto A. Mata appeals pro se a final order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the 

Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) denial of 

entitlement to an annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). We conclude that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s determination that Mr. 

Mata did not serve in a covered position for purposes of 

entitlement to a civil-service-retirement annuity under 

the CSRS. We affirm the Board’s final order denying 

entitlement to an annuity under the CSRS. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Mata worked as a planner and estimator with the 

Department of the Navy from 1968 until 1992. His service was continuous for over two decades until his involuntary separation in 1992. As a non-citizen, Mr. Mata 

received several Standard Forms 50 for the CSRS, indicating each time that his retirement code was either 

“None” or “Other,” as opposed to “Civil Service.” J.A. 7, 

17–39. Upon involuntary separation, the Standard Form 

50 effectuating separation stated that he was “entitled to 

24 months severance pay based on 24 years, and 4 days 

[of] creditable service.” J.A. 41. The Standard Forms 50 

made no mention of any entitlement to CSRS benefits. 

In July 2013, Mr. Mata submitted an application to 

OPM, seeking annuity benefits under the CSRS for his 

federal service. On December 6, 2013, OPM denied Mr. 

Mata’s application because he “never in served in a position subject to the [CSRS].” J.A. 44. Mr. Mata requested 

reconsideration, and on February 9, 2015, OPM issued its 

final decision denying entitlement to an annuity because 

Mr. Mata did not have the minimum years of covered

service. J.A. 48. Mr. Mata appealed the final decision to 

the Board. On September 21, 2015, the Board issued a 

final order denying entitlement to an annuity under the 

CSRS. 

Case: 16-1244 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/13/2016
MATA v. OPM 3

Mr. Mata appeals. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

We may hold unlawful and set aside an agency action 

found to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained 

without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation 

having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial 

evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). 

Mr. Mata argues that his lengthy federal service 

“vested” his eligibility rights in a retirement annuity 

under the CSRS. Pet’r’s Informal Br. at 8. Citing Herrera 

v. United States, 849 F.2d 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Mr. Mata 

seeks to receive a reduced CSRS annuity and receive 10% 

of the amount he “should have deposited, plus interest” 

during his service. Id. at 2, 4, 9. Mr. Mata contends that 

his service is creditable, and that certain changes in the 

law during his service converted his position into a covered position. Id. at 9, 14. Mr. Mata maintains that the 

deposit to which he seeks entitlement from past service is 

“self-executing” and arises whenever a federal employee 

decides to not make a deposit. Id. at 3. Mr. Mata also 

requests that we reject the reasoning from or overrule 

several past cases. See, e.g., Aquino v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 451 F. App’x 941 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ragados v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 180 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 

De Guzman v. Dep’t of Navy, 231 Ct. Cl. 1005 (1982). We 

discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise erroneous with the Board’s final order. 

A federal employee seeking retirement benefits must 

demonstrate by preponderant evidence that he or she is 

entitled to the benefits. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2); 

Cheeseman v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 141 

(Fed. Cir. 1986). An employee becomes eligible for annuity benefits under the CSRS by completing five years of 

“creditable” service with at least one of the last two years 

Case: 16-1244 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/13/2016
4 MATA v. OPM

prior to separation in a position “covered” by the CSRS. 

5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)–(b). An employee credited with civil

service who has not made CSRS retirement deductions 

may make a deposit with interest to the CSRS. See § 

8333(c). The relevant regulation defines employees able 

to make a deposit as (1) those currently employed in a 

position subject to the CSRS or (2) those formerly employed “who retain[] civil service retirement annuity 

rights based on a separation from a position in which 

retirement deductions were properly withheld and remain 

. . . in the [CSRS fund].” 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a). In other 

words, the regulation “allows a ‘former employee’ to make 

a deposit only if that former employee is already covered 

by the CSRS.” Dela Rosa v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 583 

F.3d 762, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Mr. Mata does not contend 

that he is currently employed in a position subject to the 

CSRS, or that he has ever had retirement deductions 

withheld under the CSRS. 

Although Mr. Mata proved that he had more than 

twenty years of service as an employee, he has failed to 

show that he served in a position covered by the CSRS. 

Mr. Mata’s Standard Forms 50 show that he was appointed as a non-citizen who “may be recruited overseas and 

appointed to overseas positions without regard to the 

Civil Service Act.” 5 C.F.R. § 8.3. His Standard Forms 50 

only indicated “None” or “Other,” and he offers no evidence that the forms contained errors or were otherwise 

incomplete. The record evidence shows that Mr. Mata 

was not in a covered position when the civil-serviceretirement statute was enacted or when the regulations 

were promulgated, nor did he later attain such a covered 

position. J.A. 17–41. Mr. Mata fails to demonstrate how 

changes in the law affected him relevant to this appeal. 

Although Mr. Mata may have been entitled to certain 

benefits as a result of his involuntary separation, entitlement to those benefits does not vest entitlements under 

the CSRS or “convert a non-covered position into a covCase: 16-1244 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/13/2016
MATA v. OPM 5

ered position.” Quiocson v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 490 F.3d 

1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“His receipt of benefits under 

a non-CSRS plan indicates that his service was not covered under the CSRS.”). 

The Board concluded, upon reviewing the Standard 

Forms 50 of record, that none of Mr. Mata’s service was 

covered service subject to the CSRS. Mr. Mata fails to 

demonstrate how this finding is unsupported by substantial evidence. This outcome is consistent with Herrera, 

the case Mr. Mata cites for support. See Herrera, 849 

F.2d at 1418 (holding that “the record before us establishes that his service does not meet” the statutory requirements for a deferred annuity). We decline to revisit or 

reconsider the precedent cited in Mr. Mata’s informal 

brief because Mr. Mata fails to explain why those decisions were incorrectly decided or how those decisions are 

enabled for review by this panel without en banc consideration. 

The Board’s final order is supported by substantial evidence, not arbitrary or capricious, and in accordance with 

law. We affirm the Board’s final order. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1244 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/13/2016