N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
MICHAEL J. PYBAS,
Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent

______________________

2020

- 1177

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT

- 844E

- 19

- 0405

- I

- 1.

______________________

Decided: October 8, 2020

______________________

M ICHAEL J. P YBAS , Winter Haven, FL, pro se.

I GOR H ELMAN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by J EFFREY B. C LARK

, L ISA L EFANTE D ONAHUE

, R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN

, J R

.

______________________

Before R EYNA

, C LEVENGER

, and C HEN
, Circuit Judges. Case: 20-1177 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 10/08/2020PYBAS v. OPM 2

P ER C URIAM

. The p etitioner

, Michael Pybas, a former law enforcement officer at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, challenges
the determination of the Merit Service Protection Board that he is not entitled to an annuity supplement under 5 U.S.C. § 8421(a)(1)

. W e affirm.

B ACKGROUND

Between April 21, 1991

, and March 19, 2006, Mr. Pybas served as a law enforcement officer for the Federal Bureau of Pr isons (“BOP”). J.A. 1. During that time, he obtained coverage as a law enforcement officer in the Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”), but he became disabled before he reached the minimum age and years of service for retirement of law enforcement officers

. At the age of 49, with 14 years, 10 months, and 28 days of service, Mr. Pybas retired as a disability retiree under 5 U.S.C. § 8451 , which provides retirement benefits to employees who complete at least 18 months of qualifying servic e and are found to be unable, because of disease or injury, to render useful and efficient service in their position. J.A. 2; 5 U.S.C. § 8451(a)(1)

. After Mr. Pybas reached his minimum retirement age , he requested that t he Office of Personnel Management ( “OPM”) recalculate his annuity to include a FERS a nnuity

s upplement

. OPM denied the request on the ground that

as a “disability retiree,” Mr. Pybas was not entitled to a FERS annuity supplement under 5 U.S.C. § 8421(a)(1)

. J.A. 19.

Mr. Pybas appealed OP M’s decision to the Merit System Protection Boar d. The Board affirmed

, reason ing that § 8421 “expressly delineates what types of annuities are eligible for the FERS annuity supplement , and a FERS disability retirement annuity is unambiguously not one of
them.” J.A. 3

– 4. The Board rejected Mr. Pybas ’s argument s that Federal Circuit precedent require d OPM to Case: 20-1177 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 10/08/2020PYBAS v. OPM 3

grant hi m a FERS annuity supplement and that OPM was bound by representations made by a BOP Human Resource
Officer who processed his application. J. A. 4.

Mr. Pybas appeals the Board’s decision . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9)

.
D ISCUSSION

This court will affirm a decision of the Board unless the decision is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in a ccordance 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 ). St atutory interpretation presents a question of law , which we review de novo

. Springer v. Adkins , 525 F.3d 1363, 1366 ( Fed. Cir. 2008)

. At issue in this appeal is whether a n employee who obtain s disability retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8451 is entitled

to an annuity supplement under 5 U.S.C. § 8421 when he
does not meet th e age and service requirements in 5 U.S.C. § 8412 . Section 8421(a)(1) provides that “an individual shall, if and while entitled to an annuity under subsection (a), (b), (d), or (e) of section 8412, or under section 8414(c), also be entitled to an annuity supplement under this section.”

Mr. Pybas contends that he is entitled to benefits under § 8421(a)(1) because he is entitled to an annuity under § 8412(d). Section 8412(d), however, provides that a n employee who is separated from service is entitled to an annuity under that section only if he has (1) completed 25 years of qualifying service ; or (2) completed 20 years of qualifying service and reached the age of 50. 5 U.S.C. § 8412(d). There is no dispute here that Mr. Pybas did not
meet either of these c onditions set forth under § 8412(d) because he retired from service after 14 years

. Contrary to th ese express statutory requirements

, Mr. Pybas argues that disability retirees under § 8451 are Case: 20-1177 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 10/08/2020PYBAS v. OPM 4

categorically entitled to benefits under § 8412(d) because of
this court’s statement in Springer v. Adkins that “retirement under § 8451 does not incorporate the age and years of service requirements of § 8412 except where explicitly
stated.” 525 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Mr. Pybas
misreads that decision.

In Springer

, this court was concerned with the interpret ation of the phrase “computed under section 8415 ” in 5 U.S.C. § 8452. There, the disability retiree had contended, and the Board had agreed, that he was entitled to a n annuity that was no less than the amount computed under § 8415 . This was because § 8451(d) provided that disability retirees are entitled to an “annuity computed under section 8452,” and § 8452 (d)(1) in turn provided that “the annuity
to which an annuitant is entitled under this section . . . shall not be less than the amount of an annuity computed
under section 8415.” Springer , 525 F.3d at 1367 (emphas i s added)

. OPM had argued that because § 8415(d) stated that the formula set forth in that subsection applied to the
“annui ty of an employee retiring under subsection (d) or (e) of section 8412,” a retiree must satisfy the age and service requirements set forth in § 8412 in order to receive an annuity “computed under” § 8415 and § 8452

. Id . at 1368

– 69. Both t he Board and thi s court rejected OPM’s argument because there was nothing in the language of either § 8415 or § 8452 that suggests Congress intended to incorporat e the requirements of § 8412 into those other provisions

. Id

. In contrast, here, § 8421(a)(1) expressly provides thatthe supplemental annuity under that section is only available “if and while entitled to an annuity under . . . section
8412.” § 8421(a)(1) (emphasis added). Unlike the “computed under” language in § 8452(d), the phrase “entitled to an annuity under” in § 8421(a)(1) is an express statementthat Congress intended for the supplemental annuity under § 8421(a)(1) to be available only when the retiree satisfies the requirements set forth in the applicable referenced Case: 20-1177 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 10/08/2020PYBAS v. OPM 5

statute , including the requirements in § 8412(d)

. 1 Thus,
the plain text of §§ 8421(a)(1) and 8412 (d) make clear that Mr. Pybas is not entitled to a FERS annuity supplementbecause he failed to satisfy the age and service requirements of § 8412 (d) . Disability retirement under § 8451 does not create an exception to those requirements

.
Because Mr. Pybas ’s position is foreclosed by the statutory text, we cannot agree with his arguments based on legislative history and policy. See Decosta v. United States

,987 F.2d 1556, 1558 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that “legislative history cannot override the plain meaning of a statute”) ; SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu , 138 S. Ct. 13 48, 1352 (2018) (noting that a party’s “ policy argument ” is “ properly addressed to Congress, not this Court ”).

We also disagree with Mr. Pybas ’s argument that he is entitled to the FERS annuity supplement under 5 C.F.R. § § 842.503

, 842.208

. H e does not di spute that the plain
text of § 842.208 contains the same age and service requirements identified in 5 U.S.C. § 8412 , which he does not satisfy . Moreover, we cannot construe and enforce OPM’s regulations contrary to the plain text of the governing statutes

.

1 The other decisions on which Petitioner relies can be distinguished on similar grounds. See Wassenaar v. Office of Personnel Management , 21 F.3d 1090, 1092 ( Fed.
Cir. 1994) (interpreting the phrase “ an annuity computed
under section 8339(a)

– (f), (i), (n), (p), and (q) ” in 5 U.S.C. § 8341 as not incorporating the age and service criteria for eligibility identified in § 8336(c) even though that provision is referenced in § 8339(d)(1) ) ; Moore v. Office of Personnel Management , 11 3 F.3d 216, 217 ( Fed. Cir. 1997) (same). Case: 20-1177 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 10/08/2020PYBAS v. OPM 6

C ONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Pybas ’ s remaining arguments
and find them to be without merit . For the reasons discussed above, the decision of the Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No Costs. Case: 20-1177 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 10/08/2020