UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

ROBERTO A. MATA,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-0831-15-0397-I-1

DATE: September 21, 2015

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Rufus F. Nobles, I, Zambales, Philippines, for the appellant.

Sarah Murray, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) finding him ineligible to receive a retirement annuity under the Civil 

Service Retirement System (CSRS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 
2

one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; 

the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation 

or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative 

judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision 

were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, 

and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material 

evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due 

diligence, was not available when the record closed. See Title 5 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully 

considering the filings in this appeal, and based on the following points and 

authorities, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under

section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the 

petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s 

final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 

¶2 The appellant was employed as a Planner and Estimator (Shipfitter) by the 

Department of the Navy in the Philippines. He received an excepted-service 

appointment effective August 21, 1968, and had continuous service until his 

involuntary termination due to reduction in force effective August 21, 1992. 

Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 37-41, 43-46, 55, 63-74, 77, 79, 81, 83-84, 

86-87, 92-94. During this period of employment, the appellant’s Standard Forms 

50 (SF-50) indicated that his retirement code was “4-None” or “5-Other,” and his 

annuitant indicator was listed as “9” or “Not Applicable.” Id. The SF-50

documenting the appellant’s July 3, 1992 termination reflects that he was 

terminated under the authority of the Filipino Employment Personnel Instruction 

(FEPI) and states that he was “entitled to 24 months severance pay based on 

24 years, and 4 days of creditable service.” Id. at 92. Additionally, the record 

includes SF-50s documenting the appellant’s July 4, 1992 appointment, not to 

exceed August 28, 1992, and his termination effective August 21, 1992. Id.

at 93-94. On July 20, 2013, the appellant applied for deferred retirement under 
3

CSRS. Id. at 24-25. OPM denied the application, finding that he was not entitled 

to a deferred annuity under CSRS and not eligible to make a CSRS deposit for his 

Federal service. Id. at 5-7, 21. The appellant filed an appeal of OPM’s 

reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 1. The administrative judge affirmed OPM’s 

decision. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID). 

¶3 On review, the appellant contends that he is entitled to a CSRS retirement 

annuity under 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), and he asserts that the administrative judge 

failed to address this argument. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. 

Specifically, the appellant reasserts that he is automatically entitled to make a 

deposit for his service ending before October 1, 1981. He contends that, with the 

promulgation of section 831.303(a) in August 1983, his service prior to 

October 1, 1982, was converted to covered service with a vested CSRS 

annuity. Id. 

¶4 As set out in the initial decision, entitlement to a CSRS retirement annuity 

requires 5 years of creditable service, ending with at least 1 of the last 2 years in 

a position covered by the CSRS. ID at 3. The administrative judge reviewed the 

applicable laws, regulations, and case law, applied them to the facts in this case, 

and correctly concluded that the appellant was not entitled to a retirement annuity 

because he failed to establish that he was ever employed in a covered position. 

ID at 3-7. 

¶5 Regarding the appellant’s specific claim to entitlement under

section 831.303(a), we find no statute or regulation that would allow the appellant 

to make a deposit or to receive a deferred annuity under the circumstances. To be 

entitled to make a service deposit under 5 U.S.C. § 8334, the appellant would 

need to meet the definition of “employee” under 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a)(2), which 

requires that he already have “civil service retirement annuity rights” based on 

CSRA-covered service. Dela Rosa v. Office of Personnel Management, 583 F.3d 

762, 764-65 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Similarly, 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), which allows 

those already covered by the CSRS to include certain creditable service 
4

performed before October 1, 1982, in calculating a retirement annuity, does not 

permit the appellant, who is not covered by the CSRS, to make a CSRS deposit. 

See Dela Rosa, 583 F.3d at 765. Accordingly, we find that the administrative 

judge correctly determined that the appellant is not entitled to make a deposit or 

to receive an annuity under the CSRS.2

 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to 

the court at the following address: 

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar 

days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court 

has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory 

deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. 

See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to 

court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in

Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the 

United States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm. 

Additional information is available at the court’s website, 

 2 The appellant filed a reply dated August 25, 2015, to the agency’s response to his 

petition for review, which the Board received on September 9, 2015. PFR File, Tab 5. 

Although this submission appears to have ben untimely filed, we have considered it,

and it does not change the result. 
5

www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se 

Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of 

Practice, and Forms 5, 6, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your appeal to 

the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at 

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation 

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The 

Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any 

attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board