NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3057 FEDERICO REMORIN, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Federico Remorin , of Subic, Philippines, pro se. Lauren A. Weeman , Trial Attorney, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were Michael F. Hertz , Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Steven J. Gillingham , Assistant Director. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3057 FEDERICO REMORIN, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit S ystems Protection Board in SF0831080417-I-1.

___________________________ DECIDED: June 8, 2009

___________________________ Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Federico Remorin (“Remorin”) petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). T he Board affirmed an Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) determination that Remorin was ineligible to make a deposit to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (“Fund”). We affirm

. BACKGROUND In 1959, Remorin was hired by the D epartment of the Navy (“Navy”) as an asphalt plant operator in Subic Bay, Phili ppines, under an indefinite excepted service appointment. He was subsequently transferred or promoted several times, each time to another temporary or indefinit e excepted appointment. On Fe bruary 7, 1992, Remorin’s appointment was terminated due to a reduction in force.On June 22, 2007, Remorin submitted an app lication to OPM seeking to make a deposit to the Fund so as to be eligible to participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). By letters dated S eptember 14, 2007, and March 19, 2008, OPM denied Remorin’s application on the ground t hat he had never served in a position covered by CSRS. Remorin appealed, and on July 22, 2008, a Board administrative judge affirmed. On October 16, 2008, the full Board declined to reconsider the initial decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). DISCUSSION Our review of Board decisions is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pr ocedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupport ed by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see also Lary v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 472 F.3d 1363, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Under 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c), an “employee” may make a CSRS deposit to receive credit for years of service during which ti me retirement deductions were not made. OPM has promulgated regulations defining “employee” for this purpose as either a current employee in a covered position, or a former employee who obtained retirement annuity rights pursuant to a previous separat ion from a covered pos ition. 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a). There is no question that Remorin was not employed in a covered position at the time of his application. The Board found, and Remorin did not dis pute, that all of Remorin’s appointments from 1952 through 1992 “were either NTE (not to exceed) appointment[s] or indefinite appointment[s] in the excepted service.” Pursuant to

2009-3057 22009-3057 3 statutory authority, OPM’s regulations specifically exclude from CSRS coverage temporary and indefinite appointm ents. 5 C.F.R. § 831.201( a)(1), (2), (6), (13), and (14); see also 5 U.S.C. § 8347(g); Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 48 F.3d 514, 519 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Because Remorin was never separated from a co vered position, the Board correctly determined that he was not entit led to make a CSRS deposit in order to obtain a federal retirement annui ty. We have repeatedly rejected similar claims by other former employees of the Navy’ s Philippines facilities. See, e.g. , Quiocson v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Rosete , 48 F.3d at 520. The decision of the Board is affirmed. No costs.