Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03074/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cesar A. Delarosa
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CESAR A. DELAROSA,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3074

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-14-0602-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 4, 2015

______________________ 

CESAR A. DELAROSA, Sto. Tomas, La Union

Philippines, pro se.

VERONICA NICOLE ONYEMA, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

DEBORAH A. BYNUM. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-3074 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2015
2 DELAROSA v. OPM

Before REYNA, CLEVENGER, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Cesar A. Delarosa appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) final order of January 15, 2015, 

denying him the opportunity to redeposit his refunded 

retirement deductions. Because Mr. Delarosa is not an 

employee eligible to redeposit retirement deductions, we 

affirm. 

I 

Cesar A. Delarosa was employed by the United States 

Navy in various civilian positions between 1981 and 1988. 

During that employment, he was subject to the Civil 

Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). In 1988, he retired 

from federal employment, and at that time he applied for 

a refund of the retirement contributions he had made

during his service. He received the refund in two disbursements in 1989. In 1999, the Office of Personnel 

Management (“OPM”) informed Mr. Delarosa that he may 

be entitled to an additional refund. He applied for and 

received that refund as well. 

In 2013, Mr. Delarosa filed an application for deferred 

retirement annuity with OPM. OPM denied the application, because Mr. Delarosa had withdrawn his retirement 

deductions. Then in 2014, Mr. Delarosa wrote to OPM, 

seeking to redeposit his refunded retirement contributions. OPM informed Mr. Delarosa that he was not eligible to redeposit refunded contributions unless he was 

reemployed by the federal government. When it denied 

this request, OPM also sent correspondence to Mr. Delarosa reminding him that—at the time he requested the 

refund—he signed a statement acknowledging:

If you have more than five years of service you 

may be entitled to annuity rights which will be 

forfeited by payment of this refund unless you are 

Case: 15-3074 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2015
DELAROSA v. OPM 3

later reemployed subject to the Civil Service Retirement law.

Mr. Delarosa appealed this decision to the Board. In 

the context of that appeal, OPM discovered a $46.11 

balance remaining in Mr. Delarosa’s retirement account. 

OPM informed Mr. Delarosa and the Board about this 

balance, and has indicated that it will return the $46.11 

once this appeal is final. 

In the Board’s initial decision, the administrative law 

judge determined that Mr. Delarosa was not entitled to 

redeposit retirement funds. The judge reasoned that Mr. 

Delarosa is not an employee under the relevant statutory 

definition, and is therefore ineligible to make such a 

deposit. The Board’s final order similarly denied Mr. 

Delarosa’s request. He appeals the Board decision. For 

the reasons below, we affirm. 

II

This court affirms the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with the 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) (2000); Tunik v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 407 F.3d 1326, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

An employee who received a refund of retirement deductions is allowed to redeposit that amount, with interest. 5 U.S.C. § 8334(d)(1). The statute explicitly limits this 

right of redeposit to employees, and Mr. Delarosa does not 

qualify as an employee. The relevant regulation, 5 C.F.R. 

§ 831.112(a), provides alternate definitions for “employee” 

as used in 5 U.S.C. § 8334(d)(1). Because Mr. Delarosa 

does not meet either regulatory definition, we agree with 

the Board that he is not eligible to redeposit his retirement deductions.

Case: 15-3074 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2015
4 DELAROSA v. OPM

First, the regulation provides that someone who is 

“currently employed in a position subject to the civil 

service retirement law” is an employee. 5 C.F.R.

§ 831.112(a)(1) (2015). There is no dispute that Mr. Delarosa is not currently employed in such a position. 

Second, a former employee may also be an employee

eligible to make a redeposit, but only if he or she “retains 

civil service retirement annuity rights.” 5 C.F.R.

§ 831.112(a)(2). Though Mr. Delarosa is a former employee, he does not retain annuity rights and therefore does

not satisfy this second definition of “employee.” 

Mr. Delarosa’s annuity rights were voided when he 

received the refund payment for his retirement deductions. 5 U.S.C. § 8342. The statute provides that he was 

entitled to receive a payment of lump-sum credit (the 

refund of his retirement deductions). Id. But that also 

entails cancelling his annuity rights. Id. And when Mr. 

Delarosa requested his retirement deductions, he was 

informed that he would forfeit annuity rights upon payment of the refund. 

Mr. Delarosa argues that he did not void his annuity 

rights, and therefore is an eligible former employee, 

because there is still $46.11 left in his retirement account. 

But that $46.11 balance does not save his annuity rights. 

OPM has reasonably interpreted the lump-sum credit 

statute to mean that, when an employee requests a refund “the employee is to be paid all of his retirement 

contributions, as well as all the interest payable with 

respect to those contributions, for his entire period of 

service.” Conway v. Office of Personnel Management, 59 

M.S.P.R. 405,409 (1993). Employees are not entitled to 

withdrawal a fraction of their retirement account, and 

preserve annuity rights. See id. The request for a lumpsum credit is a request for a full refund of retirement 

deductions, and on receipt of payment annuity rights are 

extinguished. Because an employee cannot request a 

Case: 15-3074 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2015
DELAROSA v. OPM 5

partial refund and retain annuity rights, it reasonably 

follows that—where an employee requests a full refund, 

but a balance remains leftover in his or her retirement 

account—that employee similarly has not preserved

annuity rights. 

III

Because both the Board and OPM correctly concluded 

that Mr. Delarosa is not an employee within the definition 

at 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a), and he is therefore not eligible to 

redeposit refunded retirement deductions under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8334(d), the decision of the Board is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each side shall bear its own costs.

Case: 15-3074 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/04/2015