Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03159/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
M. Carmen Luna
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

M. CARMEN LUNA,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3159

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-14-0378-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 7, 2016

______________________ 

M. CARMEN LUNA, San Antonio, TX, pro se. 

KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH, Office of the General 

Counsel, Merits Systems Protection Board, Washington, 

DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G.

POLISUK.

______________________ 

Case: 15-3159 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/07/2016
2 LUNA v. MSPB

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM

M. Carmen Luna petitions for review of a decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) 

dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because 

Ms. Luna was a reemployed voluntary early retirement

annuitant during her time at the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (“VA”), she does not have a right to appeal to the 

MSPB. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The basic facts of this case are simple. On June 30, 

2003, Ms. Luna retired early from the Food and Drug 

Administration (“FDA”). Ms. Luna, a participant in the 

Civil Service Retirement System, began receiving an 

annuity from the Office of Personnel Management 

(“OPM”). Her retirement was apparently treated by the 

FDA as a voluntary “early out” retirement, and the 

Standard Form 50 (“SF-50”) classified her as such. On 

February 2, 2006, Ms. Luna was hired by the VA, and she 

continued to receive an annuity from OPM while employed there. On February 23, 2010, the VA terminated 

Ms. Luna for cause. As discussed below, Ms. Luna would 

have had a right to appeal to the Board if her early retirement was an involuntary Discontinued Service Retirement (“DSR”) but would not have had a right to appeal 

if her retirement was a voluntary early out retirement. 

Ms. Luna initially appealed her termination by the 

VA to the MSPB on March 8, 2010. The MSPB dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that she was a 

reemployed voluntary early retirement annuitant, relying 

on her SF-50, which characterized her as a voluntary 

early out retiree. Luna v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, DA0752-10-0294-I-1, 2010 WL 10840184 (M.S.P.B. Final 

Case: 15-3159 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/07/2016
LUNA v. MSPB 3

Order, Nov. 10, 2010). Ms. Luna later requested and 

received a corrected SF-50 reclassifying her 2003 retirement as an involuntary DSR rather than a voluntary 

early out. In light of the corrected SF-50, Ms. Luna again 

appealed her 2010 termination to the MSPB on March 17, 

2014. After initial dismissal of this second appeal by an 

administrative judge, Ms. Luna petitioned for review by 

the full Board. The Board again dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction, finding that the corrected SF-50 did not 

affect Ms. Luna’s status as a voluntary early out retiree

since she had continued to receive an annuity while she 

was reemployed. Luna v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 

DA-0752-14-0378-I-1, 2015 WL 1927478 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 

29, 2015). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

Subject matter jurisdiction of the MSPB is a question 

of law, which we review de novo. Vesser v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 29 F.3d 600, 603 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Waldau v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 19 F.3d 1395, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The 

subject matter jurisdiction of the MSPB is “limited to 

actions designated as appealable to the Board ‘under any 

law, rule, or regulation.’” Prewitt v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

133 F.3d 885, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7701(a)). 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 8336(d), federal employees participating in the Civil Service Retirement System can retire 

early via a DSR, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 831.503, or via an 

“early out” Voluntary Early Retirement Authority retirement, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 831.114. While DSR is 

involuntary and early out retirement is voluntary, both 

plans make the retiree eligible for an ongoing annuity, 

and the annuity computation formula is the same under 

both. See, e.g., U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Guide to Voluntary Early Retirement Regulations (2006). If a DSR 

Case: 15-3159 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/07/2016
4 LUNA v. MSPB

retiree returns to work for the federal government, her

annuity ends and she collects a new salary in full; by 

contrast, a rehired early out retiree becomes a reemployed 

annuitant who continues to collect her annuity and separately collects a reduced salary, with the amount of the 

annuity offset from that salary. 5 U.S.C. § 8344; see also 

Wolthuis v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. 94-3596, 1995 WL 

19381, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) (unpublished). 

The distinction between full employee and reemployed 

annuitant status affects an individual’s right to appeal an 

adverse personnel action. While most federal employees 

subjected to such actions have a right to appeal the agency decision to the MSPB, see Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 

596, 600 (2012), reemployed voluntary early out retirees

do not enjoy an appeal right. Section 3323(b)(1) of title 5

specifies,

Notwithstanding other statutes, an annuitant, as 

defined by section 8331 or 8401, receiving annuity 

from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 

Fund [e.g., an early out retiree] is not barred by 

reason of his retired status from employment in 

an appointive position for which the annuitant is 

qualified. An annuitant so reemployed . . . serves 

at the will of the appointing authority.

Section 3323(b)(1) thus makes clear that any retired and 

later reemployed individual receiving an annuity from the 

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund serves at 

the will of the agency that has reemployed her.1 See 

Vesser, 29 F.3d at 604. The consequence of being an at 

will employee is that the employee has no right of appeal 

1 An exception exists for retired administrative law 

judges, who are covered by a special provision in 28 

U.S.C. § 3323(b)(2). 

 

Case: 15-3159 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/07/2016
LUNA v. MSPB 5

to the Board. 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.401(d)(4), 432.102(f)(11); see 

also Evans v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 50 F. App’x 439, 440 

(Fed. Cir. 2002). 

Ms. Luna argues that the corrected SF-50 classifying 

her retirement as a DSR should be determinative of her 

right to appeal to the MSPB. But we have held that 

characterization of an employee’s retirement on her SF-50 

is not dispositive in Grigsby v. Dep’t of Commerce, 729 

F.2d 772, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1984). There we stated, “Grigsby 

interprets [prior] cases as holding that the characterization of a personnel action on the face of the SF-50 is 

determinative of the appointment. We disagree with 

Grigsby's interpretation.” Id. Rather, our court has held 

that “actual receipt of the annuity is significant with 

regard to the status of a reemployed individual.” Vesser, 

29 F.3d at 605. That is, an individual’s receipt of an 

annuity while reemployed, rather than the formal classification of the retirement, makes her a reemployed annuitant for purposes of § 3323(b)(1). Id.; see also Terrill v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 610 F. App’x 982, 983 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (“[W]hether or not a reemployed annuitant falls 

within § 3323(b)(1) turns on whether the individual 

continues to receive an annuity upon reemployment.”). 

There is no dispute that Ms. Luna qualified for and 

received an annuity at the time of her retirement from the 

FDA in 2003, and there is likewise no dispute that she 

continued to receive an annuity while employed by the VA 

between 2006 and 2010. Because Ms. Luna met the 

requirements to receive an annuity on her separation 

from the FDA and continued to receive an annuity during 

her time at the VA, she was a reemployed voluntary 

retiree “annuitant” as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8331(9). As 

Case: 15-3159 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/07/2016
6 LUNA v. MSPB

such, she served at will and cannot appeal her termination to the MSPB.2 

We have considered Ms. Luna’s other arguments, including those relating to the Board’s refusal to accept 

additional filings from Ms. Luna and other alleged due 

process violations. We find them to be without merit. For 

the foregoing reasons, we affirm the MSPB’s dismissal of 

her suit for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

2 The parties appear to dispute whether the salary 

paid by the VA was properly offset by the amount of Ms. 

Luna’s annuity. In addition, at one point OPM sought to 

recover an alleged overpayment of annuity to Ms. Luna, 

but the MSPB found that OPM had not substantiated the

overpayment. Luna v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA831M-14-0569-C-1, 2015 WL 3990796, at ¶¶ 2, 4 

(M.S.P.B. Jun. 30, 2015). If Ms. Luna seeks to have her 

annuity reinstated (as it seems she has, see id. at ¶¶ 3, 8), 

any overpayment established by OPM would have to be 

deducted before the annuity could be reinstated. 

 

Case: 15-3159 Document: 20-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/07/2016