Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03100/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Dominico
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RICARDO DOMINICO,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3100

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-14-0294-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 11, 2015

______________________ 

RICARDO DOMINICO, San Juan, San Narciso, Zambales, Philippines, pro se.

ROBERT C. BIGLER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., STEVEN J.

GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3100 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2015
2 DOMINICO v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Ricardo Dominico appeals from the final decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming 

that Mr. Dominico does not qualify for a Civil Service 

Retirement System (“CSRS”) annuity. Dominico v. Office 

of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-14-0294-I-1, 2015 WL 268551 

(M.S.P.B. Jan. 21, 2015). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Dominico held a temporary appointment position 

in the excepted service at the U.S. Naval Ship Repair 

Facility in Subic Bay, Philippines from May 1976 to 

January 1977. He received another temporary appointment in the excepted service in June 1977, which was 

converted to an indefinite appointment in March 1980. 

Sometime thereafter, his position became permanent, and 

his employment continued until July 24, 1992, when he 

was forced to retire due to a reduction in force. Except for 

the five-month gap in 1977, his employment with the U.S. 

Navy was continuous from 1976 to 1992. During his 

service, he never deposited any of his pay into the Civil 

Service Retirement and Disability Fund (“Fund”). Upon 

retirement, he received retirement pay under the Filipino 

Employment Personnel Instruction (“FEPI”), a retirement 

system that is separate from CSRS. See Quiocson v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). 

In July 2013, Mr. Dominico applied for a retirement 

annuity under CSRS. The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) found Mr. Dominico ineligible for a CSRS

annuity for lack of “covered” service. Mr. Dominico appealed, and the OPM decision was affirmed by the administrative judge and then by the Board. Mr. Dominico 

timely petitioned this Court for review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

Case: 15-3100 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2015
DOMINICO v. OPM 3

DISCUSSION

We affirm the Board’s decision unless it was “(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); see also Dela Rosa v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 583 

F.3d 762, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Substantial evidence is 

‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” McEntee v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 404 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 

305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Mr. Dominico, as the applicant 

for retirement benefits, had “the burden of proving, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, entitlement to the benefits.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2) (2015).1 A preponderance of 

the evidence is “[t]he degree of relevant evidence that a 

reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, 

would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is 

more likely to be true than untrue.” Id. § 1201.56(c)(2).

To qualify for a CSRS annuity, Mr. Dominico must 

have completed at least five years of “creditable” service, 

with at least one of his last two years before separation 

completed in a “covered” service. Quiocson, 490 F.3d at 

1360 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 8333). The Board found that 

Mr. Dominico’s service was creditable, but never covered. 

The Board rejected his argument that 5 C.F.R. 

§ 831.303(a) retroactively converted his creditable service 

occurring prior to October 1, 1982, into covered service.

1 All citations to the Code of Federal Regulations 

are to the 2015 edition. Amendments to 5 C.F.R. part 

1201 made in January 2015 are not applicable here 

because this appeal was filed before March 30, 2015. 

Practices and Procedures, 80 Fed. Reg. 4,489 (Jan. 28, 

2015) (to be codified at 5 C.F.R. pt. 1201).

 

Case: 15-3100 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2015
4 DOMINICO v. OPM

Mr. Dominico challenges the Board’s holding on two 

grounds. First, he argues that his service with the Navy 

was covered. Second, he argues that even if his service 

was never covered, he is entitled to a CSRS annuity based 

on his creditable service performed prior to October 1, 

1982, by operation of law. We address these arguments in 

turn.

First, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Mr. Dominico was never covered by CSRS. 

“Covered service only includes an appointment that is 

subject to the [Civil Service Retirement Act (‘Act’)] and for 

which an employee must deposit part of his or her pay 

into the [Fund].” Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 48 F.3d 

514, 516 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The record shows that the 

appointments Mr. Dominico held were not subject to the 

Act and that he did not make any deposit into the Fund. 

For example, the retirement code on his Standard 

Form-50s (“SF-50”) is either “None” or “Other” and the 

annuitant indicator is listed as “Not Applicable,” which 

support the Board’s finding that he was not covered by 

the Act. And Mr. Dominico admits that he did not make 

any deposit during his employment.

Nor has Mr. Dominico pointed to any evidence on appeal that would rebut the Board’s finding that he was 

subject to a retirement system other than CSRS and thus 

not covered by CSRS. 5 U.S.C. § 8331(1)(ii) (excluding 

from CSRS employees subject to another government 

employee retirement system). The SF-50 documenting 

Mr. Dominico’s involuntary termination on July 24, 1992, 

indicates he received “16 months severance pay based on 

15 years, 10 months and 5 days creditable service with 

the U.S. Forces Philippines” in accordance with FEPI. 

A. 27. See Dela Rosa, 583 F.3d at 765–66 (declining to 

overrule the precedents establishing that an agreement 

between the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees 

Association and the Armed Forces such as the FEPI is 

“another retirement system” for the purposes of 

Case: 15-3100 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/11/2015
DOMINICO v. OPM 5

§ 8331(1)(ii)). As such, substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s determination.

We next turn to Mr. Dominico’s argument that he is 

entitled to a CSRS annuity for his service prior to October 1, 1982, even without any covered service, by operation of 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a). His argument appears to be 

that (i) he would have been a covered employee from 1976 

to 1982 but for his failure to make a deposit into the 

Fund, and (ii) the second sentence of § 831.303(a) cured 

this deficiency. Appellant’s Br. 7–8, 10–11. He argues 

that even though his application for a CSRS annuity was 

based solely on his service from 1976 to his “involuntary 

separation” in 1982, the Board erroneously looked to his 

entire service period which ended in 1992 for his coverage 

determination.2 Id. 2, 10.

We disagree with Mr. Dominico’s interpretation of 

§ 831.303(a),3 which states: 

Periods of creditable civilian service performed by

an employee or Member after July 31, 1920, but 

before October 1, 1982, for which retirement deductions have not been taken shall be included in 

determining length of service to compute annuity 

under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code; however, if the employee, Member, or survivor does not elect either to complete 

2 The service period is relevant to determining annuity eligibility because at least one of the last two years 

prior to separation must be from a position covered by 

CSRS. Mr. Dominico was continuously employed with the 

Navy from 1978 to 1992, and the Board found that he 

never held a covered position.

3 Section 831.303(a) has remained substantively the 

same for purposes of this case since its promulgation in 

1982. 

 

Case: 15-3100 Document: 18-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/11/2015
6 DOMINICO v. OPM

the deposit describes [sic] by section 8334(c) of title 5, United States Code, or to eliminate the service from annuity computation, his or her annuity 

is reduced by 10 percent of the amount which 

should have been deposited (plus interest) for the 

period of noncontributory service.

(emphasis added). We have already held that 

§ 831.303(a) “allows those already covered by the Act to 

include certain creditable service in calculating the annuity.” Fontilla v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 482 F. App’x 563, 

565 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a) which 

defines the term “employee”) (emphasis in original). 

Mr. Dominico argues that the laws and regulations from 

1982 should apply, presumably to avoid § 831.112(a), 

which was promulgated in 1991. Appellant’s Br. 10. He 

points to the definition of an “employee” in 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8331(1)(A), which incorporates the definition from 

5 U.S.C. § 2105(a). Id. 7. But § 8331(1)(ii) expressly 

excludes individuals subject to another government 

employee retirement system from the definition of an 

“employee.” As discussed earlier, Mr. Dominico falls into 

this exception, and consequently, is not an “employee” 

subject to § 831.303(a) under the § 8331 definition.

We have considered Mr. Dominico’s additional arguments and conclude that they do not warrant a different 

result. We conclude that the Board properly ruled that 

Mr. Dominico is not eligible for a CSRS annuity. The 

decision of the Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-3100 Document: 18-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/11/2015