Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03186/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry A. Griswold
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LARRY A. GRISWOLD,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3186

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-0842-13-0232-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2015 

______________________ 

LARRY A. GRISWOLD, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, 

pro se. 

JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on 

the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, Acting Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and 

DEBORAH A. BYNUM, Assistant Director. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-3186 Document: 16-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2015
2 GRISWOLD v. OPM

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Larry Griswold appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) affirming the 

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

exclude his military service from the calculation of his 

annuity supplement. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Griswold served the Federal Government in both 

civilian and military capacities. From May 1966 until 

October 1966, he was employed as a civilian with the 

Department of the Army. During this time he was covered by the Civil Service Retirement System. Mr. Griswold later served as an enlisted member of the Army for a 

total of twelve and a half years. After leaving the Army, 

Mr. Griswold obtained employment with the Department 

of Commerce, where he remained in service from February 1984 to January 2003. During his employment with 

the Department of Commerce, Mr. Griswold was covered 

by the Federal Employee’s Retirement System (“FERS”) 

and made the necessary deposit to have his prior military 

service count toward his FERS basic annuity computation. Mr. Griswold retired at age 55. 

Upon his retirement, OPM notified Mr. Griswold that 

he was to receive an annuity supplement, in addition to 

his basic annuity, until such time as he became eligible 

for Social Security benefits. J.A. 23-24. Mr. Griswold 

requested an audit of his annuity supplement calculation. 

OPM affirmed the original calculation and responded that 

Mr. Griswold’s military service did not count toward his 

annuity supplement calculation. J.A. 25-26. Mr. Griswold subsequently requested that OPM review his annuity supplement calculation a number of times, and each

Case: 14-3186 Document: 16-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2015
GRISWOLD v. OPM 3

time OPM denied his request, affirming its initial decision. J.A. 27-34.

Mr. Griswold appealed to the MSPB. Both the administrative judge and the Board affirmed OPM’s decision, 

finding that OPM properly excluded Mr. Griswold’s 

military service from his annuity supplement calculation 

pursuant to the plain language of 5 U.S.C. § 8421(b)(4)(C), 

the relevant OPM regulations, and case law. J.A. 5-8, 12-

17. Mr. Griswold appeals.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

Our review of a decision of the Board is circumscribed 

by statute. We can set aside a Board decision only if it is 

“(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) (2012). We can set aside a 

Board decision that is “unsupported by substantial evidence when it lacks such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” McLaughlin v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 

353 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Matsushita 

Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. 

Cir. 1984)). 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 8421, a retiree who is entitled to an 

annuity may be eligible for an annuity supplement prior 

to age 62. The calculation of the annuity supplement is 

based, in part, on the retiree’s years of Federal service. 

5 U.S.C. § 8421(b)(3)(A) (2002). The term “service” as 

used in this statutory provision, however, excludes military service. Id. § 8421(b)(4)(C). Thus, Mr. Griswold’s 

Case: 14-3186 Document: 16-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2015
4 GRISWOLD v. OPM

military service must be excluded from the calculation of 

his annuity supplement under § 8421.1 

Mr. Griswold argues that his military service should 

be included in the calculation for both his basic annuity 

and annuity supplement. Mr. Griswold points to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8411 to show that military service is “creditable service” 

under the relevant chapter of Title 5. Mr. Griswold is 

correct that § 8411 generally defines creditable service to 

include military service for the relevant chapter of Title 5. 

See id. § 8411; see also § 8401(26). Thus, while evidence 

indicates that Mr. Griswold made the necessary deposit to 

convert his military service to creditable service for the 

purposes of calculating his basic annuity under the FERS, 

this does not convert his military service to creditable 

service for calculation of his annuity supplement. 

Section 8421 of Title 5, which defines the annuity 

supplement, exempts military service from subsection (b) 

of that provision. “It is a fundamental canon of statutory 

construction that the words of a statute must be read in 

their context and with a view to their place in the overall 

statutory scheme,” Davis v. Mich. Dept. of Treasury, 

489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989), and, generally, “a specific statute controls over a general provision,” Almond Bros. 

Lumber Co. v. United States, 651 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011) (citing City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & 

Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002)). Here, § 8411 

broadly sets forth the definition of creditable service for 

the purposes of the FERS generally. Section 8421, which 

is focused on the calculation of the annuity supplement 

specifically, exempts military service from subsection (b) 

of that provision. As a result, Mr. Griswold’s military 

service was properly excluded from the calculation of his

annuity supplement.

1 The relevant OPM regulation is in accord. 

See 5 C.F.R. § 842.504(a)(1). 

 

Case: 14-3186 Document: 16-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2015
GRISWOLD v. OPM 5

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments. Because they do not affect the outcome of our 

decision, we do not address them.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the 

Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-3186 Document: 16-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/12/2015