Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03150/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03150-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Angel David Morales
Petitioner
United States Postal Service
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ANGEL DAVID MORALES,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3150

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0353-14-0030-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: November 10, 2015 

______________________ 

ANGEL DAVID MORALES, Guaynabo, PR, pro se.

STEPHEN FUNG, Office of the General Counsel, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3150 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2015
2 MORALES v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Angel David Morales seeks review of a final decision 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because we find no 

error in the Board’s dismissal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In February 1997, Mr. Morales was employed by the 

United States Postal Service as a Distribution Window 

Clerk in San Juan, Puerto Rico. At the time, Mr. Morales 

received an annual base salary of $35,409 based on his 

status as a Grade 5, Step K employee. On or around 

February 27, 1997, Mr. Morales was injured on the job, 

after which Mr. Morales applied for and was granted 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 

benefits based on his compensable injury. Mr. Morales 

received OWCP benefits from February 1997 to September 2013, when Mr. Morales requested that he be fully 

restored to his former position. The Postal Service restored Mr. Morales to his former position on September 

16, 2013, as a Grade 6, Step O employee with an annual 

base salary of $54,777. On September 21, 2013, Mr. 

Morales bid on and was awarded a position as a Sales and 

Distribution Associate at the same grade, step, and annual base salary. 

On October 24, 2013, Mr. Morales filed an appeal with 

the Board, alleging that his restoration was improper

because the Postal Service failed to credit his time spent 

receiving OWCP benefits for purposes of calculating sick 

and annual leave, Social Security, Thrift Savings Plan 

contributions, Medicare, retirement, and life insurance. 

The administrative judge acknowledged the Postal Service’s obligation to provide Mr. Morales with all benefits 

based on length of service he would have received but for 

his compensable injury, but explained that the benefits 

Mr. Morales seeks are not benefits based upon length of 

service. The administrative judge therefore dismissed the 

Case: 15-3150 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2015
MORALES v. MSPB 3

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Morales had 

failed to nonfrivolously allege that the Postal Service’s 

restoration was improper. 

On August 17, 2014, Mr. Morales petitioned the Board 

to review the administrative judge’s initial decision. The 

Board explained that under 5 U.S.C. § 8151(a), a restored

employee is entitled to credit for the time during which 

the employee received OWCP benefits “for the purposes of 

within-grade step increases, retention purposes, and other 

rights and benefits based upon length of service.” Because the benefits Mr. Morales seeks are not contemplated by § 8151(a), the Board concluded that the Postal 

Service’s restoration was not improper. The Board therefore dismissed Mr. Morales’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

on March 31, 2015. Mr. Morales’ appeal to this court 

followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Board decision is limited. We can set aside the Board’s 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); Briggs v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 331 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Whether the Board has jurisdiction is a question of 

law reviewed de novo. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 

F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Board’s jurisdiction is 

“limited to actions made appealable to it by law, rule or 

regulation.” Id. Mr. Morales, as the petitioner, has the 

burden of proving the Board’s jurisdiction through nonfrivolous allegations supported by preponderant evidence. 

See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2); Coradeschi v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 439 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Case: 15-3150 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2015
4 MORALES v. MSPB

We agree with the Board that Mr. Morales has failed 

to meet his burden. As for Mr. Morales’ claim to retirement benefits, this court has held that non-actual service, 

such as time spent receiving OWCP benefits, does not 

count toward fulfilling retirement annuity credit requirements. See True v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 926 F.2d 1151, 

1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Congress considered and rejected 

the possibility of allowing FECA beneficiaries to count 

non-actual service toward fulfilling the retirement annuity credit requirements of section 8344(a).”); Gallo v. Dep’t 

of Transp., 689 F.3d 1294, 1302–03 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(“[T]his court unequivocally held in True that § 8151(a) 

does not encompass civil service retirement credit, a right 

based on actual employment time, not including time that 

an employee was receiving OWCP compensation under 

FECA.”). Mr. Morales’ claim to sick and annual leave 

similarly fails because sick and annual leave are not 

rights based upon length of service. Palmer v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 550 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (failure to 

credit sick and annual leave “is not an allegation of failure to credit time spent on compensation for purposes of 

rights and benefits based upon length of service”). 

As for Mr. Morales’ claim to Social Security benefits, 

Thrift Savings Plan contributions, Medicare, and life 

insurance, the Board correctly concluded that these 

benefits are beyond the scope of § 8151(a). Social Security, Thrift Savings, and Medicare contributions are based 

on an employee’s salary. See 5 U.S.C. § 8422 (Thrift

Savings); 26 U.S.C. § 3101 (Social Security and Medicare). 

Life insurance contributions, though not directly dependent on salary, are withdrawn from an employee’s regular 

pay. See 5 U.S.C. § 8707. Mr. Morales was not earning a 

regular salary from the Postal Service during the time he 

received OWCP benefits. OWCP benefits are not considered salary but rather compensation for injury. See 5 

U.S.C. §§ 8102(a) and 8101(12); Roja v. Dep’t of Navy, 55 

M.S.P.R. 618, 621 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 24, 1992). The Postal 

Case: 15-3150 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2015
MORALES v. MSPB 5

Service was therefore not required to credit Mr. Morales 

with Social Security, Thrift Savings Plan, Medicare, or 

life insurance contributions during the time he was receiving OWCP benefits.

Mr. Morales’ arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Mr. Morales argues that the Board incorrectly 

applied 5 U.S.C. § 8332(f), which he argues entitled him

to credit for civil service retirement during his absence 

from actual service. A similar argument was considered 

and rejected by this court in True. See 926 F.2d at 1156 

(“Like section 8151(a), section 8332(f) makes no reference 

to . . . civil service retirement annuities . . . .”). It is wellsettled that § 8151(a) does not encompass civil service 

retirement credit. Gallo, 689 F.3d at 1302–03. 

Mr. Morales also argues that the Board’s electronic 

appeal application led him to believe that the Board had 

jurisdiction because the application stated that an employee could appeal a decision by a “Federal Agency 

Affecting . . . Rights or Benefits.” A general summary of 

the Board’s jurisdiction, however, is not controlling. The 

Board’s jurisdiction extends only as far as law, rule, or 

regulation allows. See 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a); Forest, 47 F.3d 

at 410. 

Finally, Mr. Morales argues that the Postal Service 

did not credit him with the proper amount of leave based 

on his leave accrual rate. The record does not support 

this allegation. The record indicates that upon restoration, Mr. Morales’ leave accrual rate was set at the correct 

rate of 8 hours per pay period. We therefore affirm the 

Board’s decision dismissing Mr. Morales’ appeal. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3150 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2015