Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01114/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01114-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco T. Garcia
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FRANCISCO T. GARCIA,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1114

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-14-0567-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 21, 2016 

______________________ 

FRANCISCO T. GARCIA, Olongapo City, Philippines, pro 

se.

DEVIN ANDREW WOLAK, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

BRIAN A. MIZOGUCHI. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1114 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/21/2016
2 GARCIA v. OPM

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Francisco T. Garcia appeals a decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the Office of 

Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) denial of entitlement to 

a deferred retirement annuity under the Civil Service 

Retirement System (“CSRS”). The Board found that Mr. 

Garcia never served in a position covered by the CSRS. 

That finding is in accordance with law; the decision is 

affirmed.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Garcia worked for the Department of the Navy at 

the Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines from 1972 

until 1992 in a variety of positions in the excepted service. 

Between 1972 and February 1980, these positions were 

classified as “temporary,” and all of the “Notice of Personnel Action” Standard Forms 50 (“SF-50s”) for these appointments list his retirement plan as “None.” 

On February 17, 1980, Mr. Garcia’s position was reclassified as an excepted service “indefinite” appointment. 

Mr. Garcia served as a Surveying Aid, Surveying Technician, and Supervisory Surveying Technician until he 

resigned on September 30, 1992 in lieu of termination 

under a reduction-in-force. Each SF-50 during this period

listed his retirement plan as “Not Applicable” or “Other.” 

There is no record that any of Mr. Garcia’s pay was ever 

withheld or deposited into the CSRS fund, and Mr. Garcia 

does not state otherwise.

In 2012, Mr. Garcia filed an application for deferred 

retirement under the CSRS. OPM denied the application 

because he “never served in a position subject to the 

CSRS.” J.A. 24. Mr. Garcia requested reconsideration, 

and on April 21, 2014, OPM issued its final decision 

denying entitlement to an annuity, stating that Mr. 

Garcia did not have the minimum one year of covered 

service.

Case: 16-1114 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/21/2016
GARCIA v. OPM 3

Mr. Garcia appealed to the Board. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that Mr. Garcia did not serve in 

a position covered by the Civil Service Retirement Act 

(“CSRA”) during one of his last two years of employment, 

as required by 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b). The Board observed 

that Mr. Garcia’s appointments were either excepted 

service indefinite or temporary, which are not covered by 

the CSRA. Mr. Garcia appeals.

DISCUSSION

To be eligible for a retirement annuity, an employee 

must have completed at least five years of “creditable 

service.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 8333(a)-(b). In addition, at least one 

of the final two years of employment prior to separation 

must have been “covered” service, that is, “creditable 

civilian service during which he is subject to the [CSRA].” 

5 U.S.C. § 8333(b). Temporary, intermittent, term, and 

excepted indefinite appointments are excluded from 

CSRA coverage. 5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a); Quiocson v. Office 

of Pers. Mgmt., 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Mr. Garcia argues that certain changes in the law 

during his service converted his creditable position into a 

covered position within the CSRA. 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c) 

permits an “employee . . . credited with civilian service . . . 

for which retirement deductions have not been made” 

under the CSRS to make a deposit with interest to the 

CSRS and receive an annuity. 

The issue relates to the applicability of 5 C.F.R. 

§ 831.112, which defines an “employee” eligible to make a 

deposit or receive an annuity as:

(1) A person currently employed in a position subject to the civil service retirement law; or

(2) A former employee . . . who retains civil service 

retirement annuity rights based on a separation 

from a position in which retirement deductions 

Case: 16-1114 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/21/2016
4 GARCIA v. OPM

were properly withheld and remain . . . in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Mr. Garcia argues that this regulatory provision does not 

apply to him because annuities for creditable service prior 

to 1982 are governed solely by 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), 

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 . 

. . ; however, if the employee, Member, or survivor 

does not elect either to complete the deposit described 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.

Mr. Garcia states that this provision retroactively converted all periods of “creditable” federal employment prior 

to October 1, 1982 to “covered” service under the CSRA. 

Mr. Garcia also argues that under § 831.303(a), he is 

entitled to a reduced annuity for his federal service between June 24, 1974 and September 30, 1982. 

This court has previously considered the issue, and 

concluded that statutory entitlement does not arise on 

either of these theories. See, e.g., Dela Rosa v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., 583 F.3d 762, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding 

that § 831.112(a)(2) “allows a ‘former employee’ to make a 

deposit only if that former employee is already covered by 

the CSRS”); id. at 764 (agreeing that § 8334(c) does not 

allow a former employee to “convert [creditable] service 

into covered service and thereby establish eligibility for a 

CSRS retirement annuity); Herrera v. U.S., 849 F.2d 

1416, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“temporary, indefinite apCase: 16-1114 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/21/2016
GARCIA v. OPM 5

pointments” were not “covered service”); see also Fontilla 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 482 F. App’x 563, 565 (Fed. Cir. 

2012) (“Section 831.303(a) does not supplant § 831.112 

and cannot circumvent the covered service requirement of 

5 U.S.C. § 8333(b).”)

There is no statutory support for Mr. Garcia’s arguments that § 831.303(a) retroactively converted creditable 

service into covered service or otherwise changed who 

qualified for an annuity. Prior to 1982, Mr. Garcia served 

in temporary and excepted service indefinite positions

that clearly were excluded from the CSRS. Although Mr. 

Garcia had more than five years of creditable service as 

an employee, section 831.303(a) did not convert excluded 

positions into CSRA covered service. Mr. Garcia’s SF-50s 

only indicate “None,” “Other,” or “Not Applicable,” and he 

has not proposed that the forms contained errors or were 

otherwise incomplete. Section 831.303(a) does not supplant the covered service requirements of § 831.112(a)(2) 

and 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b). The only effect of § 831.303(a) is 

to permit persons already covered by the CSRS to include 

certain service when calculating the annuity. We discern 

no error in the Board’s determination that Mr. Garcia had 

not served in a position covered by the CSRS. 

We have considered Mr. Garcia’s additional arguments relating to his participation in a different retirement system under a collective bargaining agreement, 

and conclude they do not affect the result.

The decision of the Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 16-1114 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/21/2016