NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Litigation 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 Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems 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”). The 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 Department of the Navy (“Navy”) as an 

asphalt plant operator in Subic Bay, Philippines, under an indefinite excepted service 

appointment. He was subsequently transferred or promoted several times, each time to 

another temporary or indefinite excepted appointment. On February 7, 1992, Remorin’s 

appointment was terminated due to a reduction in force. 
On June 22, 2007, Remorin submitted an application 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 September 14, 2007, and March 19, 2008, OPM 

denied Remorin’s application on the ground that 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 procedures required by law, rule, or 

regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported 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 time 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 separation from a covered position. 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 dispute, 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 2 
2009-3057 3 

statutory authority, OPM’s regulations specifically exclude from CSRS coverage 

temporary and indefinite appointments. 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 covered position, the 

Board correctly determined that he was not entitled to make a CSRS deposit in order to 

obtain a federal retirement annuity. 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.