Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03035/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgardo G. Francisco
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EDGARDO G. FRANCISCO,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3035

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-14-0436-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: July 8, 2015

______________________ 

EDGARDO G. FRANCISCO, San Juan, San Narcisco 

Zambales, Philippines, pro se. 

WILLIAM PORTER RAYEL, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.

______________________ 

Case: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2015
2 FRANCISCO v. OPM

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Edgardo Francisco appeals the decision of the Merit 

System Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the ruling of 

the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) that 

Francisco is not entitled to a civil service annuity under 

the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). Francisco 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-14-0436-I-1, 2014 

MSPB Lexis 6512 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 18, 2014) (“Board

Decision”). We affirm. 

I 

Francisco worked for the Department of the Navy in 

Subic Bay, Philippines intermittently from 1972 through 

1992. The Navy employed Francisco as a “mechanical 

instrument mechanic” from May 11, 1972 through August 

24, 1973, as a “mechanical instrument mechanic intermediate” from January 2, 1974 through June 13, 1979, and 

as an “electronics mechanic” from December 18, 1985 

through July 10, 1992. Francisco was hired in 1972 and

1974 to an “excepted appointment”, and his employment 

was converted to “indefinite” from 1978 through 1979. In 

1985, he was rehired to an excepted appointment, where 

he remained through 1992. On the Standard Form 50 

(‘SF-50”) forms spanning his employment, his retirement 

indicator was consistently either “None” or “Other,” and 

his annuitant indicator was “Not Applicable.” No CSRS 

contributions were withheld from Francisco’s pay during 

the period of his employment. The Navy terminated 

Francisco’s employment on June 22, 1992 due to a reduction-in-force, and upon the termination, Francisco received “12 months severance pay based on 12 years and 5 

days creditable service with the U.S. Forces Philippines in 

accordance with [Filipino Employment Personnel Instructions (“FEPI”)]”. Resp’t App. 13.

Case: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2015
FRANCISCO v. OPM 3

Francisco filed an application for deferred retirement

benefits with the CSRS on September 8, 2012, requesting 

an annuity on the basis of his federal service from 1974 

through 1979. On February 28, 2013, OPM denied his 

request, acknowledging that, although he performed 

civilian service for the United States, he did not serve in a 

position subject to the Civil Service Retirement Act

(“CSRA”) and is not eligible for a CSRS annuity. Francisco filed a request for reconsideration, claiming that his 

application for an annuity was limited to his federal 

service ending before October 1982. Francisco also argued that his application for benefits included a request 

to pay a deposit towards the annuity under 5 C.F.R. 

831.303(a) in order to correct the Navy’s failure to withdraw CSRS contributions during his employment. On 

reconsideration, OPM again denied Francisco’s claims for 

an annuity, concluding that Francisco did not, at any time 

during his employment with the Navy, work in a position 

subject to the CSRS because “indefinite” and “excepted 

appointment” positions were excluded from CSRS coverage. 

Francisco appealed OPM’s reconsideration decision to 

the Board on March 31, 2014. Board Decision, at *1. 

Upon review of Francisco’s SF-50 forms, the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) concluded that Francisco had not met 

his burden of proving that his appointments with the 

Navy were sufficient to qualify him for CSRS benefits. Id.

at *3–5. The AJ held that Francisco did not establish that 

he had at least one year of covered service in the last two 

years of any of his employment periods, as required by 5 

U.S.C. § 8333(b) (2012). In particular, the AJ found that

the “indefinite” and “excepted appointment” categories of 

Francisco’s employment were excluded from CSRS retirement coverage under OPM regulations at 5 C.F.R. 

§ 831.201(a). Board Decision, at *4. The AJ also noted 

that the lack of CSRS retirement deductions and the 

retirement and annuitant indicators on Francisco’s SF-50 

Case: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2015
4 FRANCISCO v. OPM

forms further supported the conclusion that Francisco’s

employment did not qualify him for CSRS retirement 

coverage. Id. at *4–5. Francisco did not petition for 

review of the AJ’s initial decision, and it became the final 

decision of the Board on October 23, 2014.

Francisco filed a timely notice of appeal on February 

13, 2015, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

II

The scope of our review of a Board decision is limited. 

We can set aside a Board decision only if 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).

Francisco argues that the Board and OPM erred 

because he has only sought benefits based on his federal 

service ending prior to October 1, 1982, and both the 

Board and OPM inappropriately considered the full 

extent of his federal service time in their decision-making. 

Francisco also claims that he is entitled to make a deposit 

towards his annuity pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), 

and OPM erred both by not discussing his request to 

make the deposit, and by not allowing him to submit a 

deposit. The government responds that the Board’s and 

OPM’s consideration of Francisco’s entire service time is 

harmless error. None of Francisco’s service qualifies as 

“covered service” under the CSRA, and therefore Francisco would not be eligible for an annuity regardless of the 

time period considered by the agency. The government 

also points to evidence in Francisco’s SF-50 forms, such as 

the retirement and annuitant indicators and Francisco’s 

receipt of a severance package under the FEPI, as support 

of its argument that Francisco did not participate in 

covered service during his employment with the Navy. As

Case: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2015
FRANCISCO v. OPM 5

for Francisco’s claim that he be allowed to make a deposit 

under 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), the government argues that a 

former employee who does not already have annuity 

rights through covered service may not create annuity 

rights through a deposit under 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a). 

We agree with the government’s arguments. A federal employee seeking retirement benefits must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is 

entitled to the benefits. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2) (2015); 

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

(Fed. Cir. 1986). Eligibility for retirement benefits under 

the CSRA generally requires that the employee demonstrate that they meet two conditions. 5 U.S.C. § 8333;

Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 48 F.3d 514, 516 (Fed. Cir. 

1995). First, the employee “must complete at least 5 

years of civilian service before he is eligible for an annuity 

under this subchapter.” 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a). This service 

is termed “creditable service,” and most federal service is 

creditable. Herrera v. United States, 849 F.2d 1416, 1417 

(Fed. Cir. 1988). There is no dispute that Francisco has 

completed at least five years of creditable service. Second, 

the employee “must complete, within the last 2 years 

before any separation from service . . . at least 1 year of 

creditable civilian service during which he is subject to 

this subchapter before he or his survivors are eligible for 

annuity.” 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b). This service is termed 

“covered service,” and includes only appointments subject 

to the CSRA and “for which an employee [ ] deposited part 

of his or her pay into the Civil Service Retirement and 

Disability Fund.” Rosete, 48 F.3d at 516.

Congress designated OPM as the agency that administers the CSRS, including permitting OPM to exclude 

certain categories of employees from covered service. 5 

U.S.C. § 8347. This includes employees “whose employment is temporary or intermittent.” Id. § 8347(g). OPM 

has subsequently promulgated regulations excluding 

certain employees from covered service, including tempoCase: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2015
6 FRANCISCO v. OPM

rary, intermittent, and excepted indefinite appointments. 

5 C.F.R. §§ 831.201(a)(1),(2),(6),(13),(14). We have interpreted these regulations to include indefinite appointments under the exclusions for temporary appointments. 

See Quioscan v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 490 F.3d 1358, 

1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Rosete, 48 F.3d at 519.

The Board and OPM correctly determined that Francisco did not have the necessary covered service to qualify 

for an annuity under 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b). Francisco’s SF50 forms indicate that his employment was either “excepted appointment” or “indefinite” for the entirety of his 

time with the Navy. Under our prior interpretations of 

the exclusions in 5 C.F.R. § 831.201, both excepted appointments and indefinite appointments do not qualify as 

covered service. Francisco therefore did not complete 

“within the last 2 years before” any of his three separations from service “at least 1 year of creditable service 

during which he is subject to” the CSRA. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8333(b). 

The Board and OPM also correctly identified other evidence in Francisco’s SF-50 forms that support their

conclusion that Francisco did not have any covered service. First, no retirement contributions were withheld 

from Francisco’s pay. Quiocsan, 490 F.3d at 1360. The 

retirement indicator on his SF-50 forms was either “None” 

or “Other,” and the annuitant indicator was “Not Applicable.” And finally, Francisco received a severance package 

under the FEPI, and his receipt of benefits under a nonCSRS retirement plans “indicates that his service was not 

covered under the CSRS.” Id.; see also 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8331(1)(ii) (defining “employee” under the CSRS as not 

including “an employee subject to another retirement 

system for Government employees”). These facts all 

strongly indicate that Francisco’s service with the Navy in 

the Philippines was, at no point, covered service.

Case: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/08/2015
FRANCISCO v. OPM 7

Francisco claims that the Board and OPM erred by 

considering his entire employment history, instead of 

merely his employment from 1972 through 1979. As we 

have explained, however, Francisco did not complete the 

requisite one year of covered service at any time between 

1972 and 1992, including during his employment from 

1972 through 1979. To the extent that there was any 

error in the Board and OPM considering Francisco’s post1979 employment, that error was harmless.

Finally, Francisco argues that he should have been 

permitted to make a deposit towards his annuity under 5 

C.F.R. § 831.303(a), and the Board and OPM erred by 

denying him this opportunity. Under 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c), 

an employee credited with civilian service may deposit an 

amount necessary to compensate for retirement deductions or deposits that were not made during his or her 

service. Former employees, like Francisco, may make 

deposits only if they “retain[] civil service retirement 

annuity rights based on a separation from a position in 

which retirement deductions were properly withheld and 

remain . . . in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 

Fund.” 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a)(2). Thus, a former employee 

may only “make a deposit [ ] 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). “A retroactive 

deposit does not convert a non-covered position into a 

covered position.” Quioscon, 490 F.3d at 1360. Because 

Francisco did not have any covered service during his 

employment with the Navy, a deposit under 5 C.F.R. 

§ 831.303(a) cannot cure this defect in his application for 

a CSRS annuity. The Board and OPM therefore did not 

err in denying Francisco the opportunity to make a deposit into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Because the Board’s and OPM’s determination that 

Francisco did not serve in a covered position is supported 

by substantial evidence, we affirm the Board’s decision.

Case: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 7 Filed: 07/08/2015
8 FRANCISCO v. OPM

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-3035 Document: 17-2 Page: 8 Filed: 07/08/2015