NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-3193

AMADO D. CRUZ, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: November 8, 2006

__________________________ Before MAYER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Amado D. Cruz appeals the fi nal decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Cruz v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , SF0831050649-I-1 (MSPB Jan. 20, 2006), which denied his petition for review and rendered final the in itial decision that affirmed the Office of Personnel Management’s denial of his applicati on for an annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). Cruz v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , SF0831050649-I-1 (MSPB Sept. 20, 2005). We affirm

.Entitlement to Civil Service Retirem ent System (“CSRS”) annuity benefits requires, inter alia , completion of at least one year of creditable civilian ser v ice subject to the Civ il Service Retirement Act (“CSRA”) wit hin the t w o-year period before separation from service. 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b); Casilang v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 248 F.3d 1381, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Not all service is covered by the CSRA, and, as relevant here, indefinite employees are ex c l ude d from such coverage. 5 C.F.R. 831.201(a)(13) (excluding from CSRA co verage “employees serving under nonpermanent appointments, designated as i ndefinite, made after January 23, 1955, the effective date of the repeal of Executive Order 10180”); see als o Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 48 F.3d 514, 520 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The board concluded that all of dela Cruz ’s service was rende r ed under an excepted indefinite a ppointment , and that he was theref ore ineligible for a CSRS annuity. We must affirm its de cision unless it was arbitrary, caprici ous, an abuse of discretion, or unlawful; proc edurally defic ient; or unsupport ed by substantial evidence

. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The board observed that his Standard Form 50s (“SF-50s”) indicat e his retirement status as “not applicable,” “o ther,” or “none.” In addition, it determined that the SF-50 documenting hi s resignation shows he was “ entitled to lump s u m benefits equivalent to 75% of 24 months basic pay ,” and that there is no indication that this benefit was under the CSRA. Receiving retirement pay under a non-CSRA plan
indic a tes that an employee is not covered by CSRA. 5 U.S.C. § 8331(1) (L)(ii) ; see al so De Guzman v. Dep't of Navy , 231 Ct. Cl. 1005 (1982). Finally, the board determined that no evidence suggested that any retirement contributions were ever taken from his

2006-3193 2pay. Thes e determinations ar e supported by the record, and they support the board’ s conclus i on that he did not establis h an entitlement to the benefits sought. Dela Cruz argues that his promotion in 1983 brought him within the CSRA’s coverage. Howev e r, the boar d found no evid enc e to support this assertion, and observed that his SF-50s after that time continued to denote his retirement as “none.” He further argues that the tenur e status indic a ted on his SF- 50s establishes that he was a permanent employee, specific ally noting that his tenur e group was changed during his employment. Howev e r, to the extent this ev idenc e c onflicts with his retirement status designated on thos e same forms, the board di d not err in weighing the ev idenc e presented. Rosete , 48 F.3d at 519-20. We have c ons idered the remaining arguments and find them without merit.

2006-3193 3