Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-17-01088/USCOURTS-ca13-17-01088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin L. Jarmin
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARVIN L. JARMIN,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2017-1088

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-16-0161-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 9, 2017

______________________ 

MARVIN L. JARMIN, Mount Vernon, WA, pro se.

STEVEN C. HOUGH, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

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

ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 17-1088 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/09/2017
2 JARMIN v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Marvin L. Jarmin petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) decision affirming 

the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) decision to 

deny his request for service credit under the Civil Service 

Retirement Act (“CSRA”) for his military service. Jarmin 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-16-0161-I-1, 2016 

WL 4425122 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 19, 2016). Because 

Mr. Jarmin failed to file a timely petition for review to 

this court, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

I 

Mr. Jarmin served on active duty in the United States 

Army from January 5, 1954, through December 8, 1955. 

From December 8, 1955, until his honorable discharge on 

December 31, 1961, he served in the United States Army 

Reserves. From February 1, 1965, until his retirement on 

September 30, 1986, Mr. Jarmin worked as a civilian 

employee of the United States Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. Jarmin’s Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) 

annuity includes service credit for his active duty service 

with the Army, but not for his reserve duty service with 

the Reserves.

On February 20, 2015, Mr. Jarmin contacted OPM to 

request service credit for his reserve duty service. On 

July 15, 2015, OPM denied his request. Mr. Jarmin 

sought reconsideration on August 31, 2015, which OPM 

denied on November 12, 2015.

In December 2015, Mr. Jarmin appealed OPM’s decision to the MSPB. On February 18, 2016, the MSPB 

issued its initial decision affirming OPM’s decision. On 

August 19, 2016, the MSPB issued its Final Order affirming the administrative law judge’s decision and denying 

Mr. Jarmin’s petition for review. 

Case: 17-1088 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/09/2017
JARMIN v. OPM 3

On October 20, 2016, Mr. Jarmin filed informal documents with this Court which we construed as a petition 

for review.

II

Before addressing the merits, an appeals court must 

ensure that it has jurisdiction over the matters appealed. 

See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 

94–95 (1998). This court’s review of final decisions of the 

Board is limited to those petitions “filed within 60 days 

after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision 

of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).1 If that statutory 

deadline is not met, we cannot exercise jurisdiction in the 

case. See Oja v. Dep't of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1360 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Compliance with the filing deadline of 5 

U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to our exercise of 

jurisdiction over this case.”); see also Monzo v. Dep't of 

Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding 

that the filing deadline under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is 

“statutory, mandatory [and] jurisdictional”); Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 209, 210 (2007) (holding that statutory 

time limits for taking an appeal are jurisdictional); Reed 

Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 168 (2010). 

With its August 19, 2016 Final Order pertaining to 

Mr. Jarmin, the Board included a “Notice to the Appellant 

Regarding Your Further Review Rights,” stating specifically that the Federal Circuit “must receive your request 

for review no later than 60 calendar days after the date of 

 

1 Before Congress amended this statute in 2012, the 

deadline was 60 days after the petitioner received notice of 

the MSPB’s decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) (2011). 

However, even under the old standard we would lack 

jurisdiction, since Petitioner asserts on the face of his 

petition that he received the MSPB’s order on August 19, 

2016, the same date it was issued.

Case: 17-1088 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/09/2017
4 JARMIN v. OPM

this order” and noting that Mr. Jarmin should be “very 

careful to file on time.” App’x 7. 

Under § 7703(b)(1), Mr. Jarmin’s petition was due sixty days after the MSPB issued its final order on August 

19, 2016, resulting in a deadline of October 18, 2016. 

Here, the first papers filed by Mr. Jarmin with the Court 

were received on October 20, 2016, two days after that

deadline. Because Mr. Jarmin’s petition was filed after 

the 60–day statutory period for appeal, this court cannot 

exercise jurisdiction to address the merits of his case.

For the reasons stated above, we find that we are 

without jurisdiction to consider this appeal and must 

therefore dismiss this case.

DISMISSED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 17-1088 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/09/2017