NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

ANGEL V. ANTES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3152 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. SF0831100717-I-1. 

__________________________ 

Decided: January 18, 2012 

__________________________ 

ANGEL V. ANTES, of Olongapo City, Philippines, pro se. 

KIMBERLY I. KENNEDY, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, 

for respondent. With her on the brief were TONY WEST, 

Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR., Assistant Director. 

__________________________ 
2 ANTES v. OPM

Before LINN, PROST, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Angel V. Antes (“Antes”) appeals from a decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) affirming the decision of the Office of Personnel Management 

(“the Office”) concluding that he was ineligible to receive 

Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) annuity benefits and ineligible to make a deposit to the Civil Service 

Disability and Retirement Fund (“CSRS Fund”). Antes v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-10-0717-I-1 (M.S.P.B. 

Sept. 17, 2010) (“Initial Decision”), reh’g denied, (M.S.P.B. 

May 5, 2011) (“Final Order”). For the reasons explained 

below, this court affirms. 

BACKGROUND

Antes worked from March 1969 to July 1992 as a civilian employee for the Department of the Navy (“Navy”) 

at Subic Bay, Philippines. Each of Antes’s appointments 

during this time was either a temporary appointment or 

an indefinite appointment in the excepted service. During 

this time, Antes was not covered by the Civil Service 

Retirement System, as reflected on the Standard Forms 

50 of record indicating that his retirement plan was either 

4 (None) or 5 (Other), as opposed to 1 (Civil Service). 

Antes admits that his federal employment was not subject 

to retirement deductions and that retirement deductions 

were not withheld during his employment. When Antes 

separated from federal employment in 1992, he was 

informed that he was entitled to twenty four months of 

severance pay based on his more than twenty three years 

of creditable service. 

In 1999, Antes requested a deferred CSRS annuity, 

which was denied by the Office because it concluded that 

Antes never served in a position subject to the CSRS. In 

2008, Antes sought to make a deposit into the CSRS 

Fund, under 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c), to cover the period of his 

federal service and make up for retirement deductions 
 ANTES v. OPM 3

that the Navy had not taken from his salary during his 

service. The Office denied Antes’s request because it 

concluded that none of Antes’s previous appointments 

were subject to the CSRS. Antes appealed to the Board, 

which also concluded that Antes never served in a position covered under the Civil Service Retirement System. 

Initial Decision at 4-6. Antes then petitioned the full 

Board, which denied his petition for rehearing. Final 

Order at 1-5. Antes appealed to this court, which has 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

This court 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). 

Antes argues on appeal that the Board erred in concluding that he was ineligible to receive CSRS annuity 

benefits and ineligible to make a deposit into the CSRS 

Fund. Specifically, Antes contends that he is eligible to 

receive benefits and make a contribution to the CSRS 

Fund because he meets the definition of “employee” in 5 

U.S.C. §§ 2105(a) and 8331(1)(A). Antes also argues that, 

based on his years of creditable service and 5 C.F.R 

§ 831.303, he should be permitted to make a deposit in the 

CSRS Fund for his years of creditable service before 1982. 

The government responds that 5 U.S.C. § 8333 makes 

clear that one’s status as a federal employee, alone, is 

insufficient to confer entitlement to CSRS annuity benefits. The government responds that 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a) 

provides the proper definition of an employee who may 

make a deposit to the CSRS Fund. Additionally, the 

government contends that 5 C.F.R. § 831.303 applies only 

to computations concerning the length of an individual’s 
4 ANTES v. OPM

service and is irrelevant as to whether an individual is 

covered under the CSRS. 

This court agrees with the government. Section 8333 

requires that, in order for an employee to be eligible for 

annuity benefits under the CSRS, an employee must 

complete five years of “creditable” service with at least 

one of the last two years prior to separation being in a 

position “covered” by the CSRS. Section 8334(c) further 

provides that “[e]ach employee . . . credited with civilian 

service . . . for which retirement deductions or deposits 

have not been made, may deposit with interest an amount 

equal to [a specified percentage] of his basic pay received 

for that service.” The regulation associated with that 

section defines employees able to make a deposit under 

that section as (1) those currently employed in a position 

subject to the CSRS or (2) those formerly employed “who 

retain[] civil service retirement annuity rights based on a 

separation from a position in which retirement deductions 

were properly withheld and remain . . . in the [CSRS 

Fund].” 5 C.F.R. § 831.112. This regulation “allows a 

‘former employee’ to make a deposit only if that former 

employee is already covered by the CSRS.” Dela Rosa v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 583 F.3d 762, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Antes does not contend that he is currently employed in a 

position subject to the CSRS or that he has ever had 

retirement deductions withheld under the CSRS. Thus, 

Antes’s appeal turns on whether he has ever served in a 

position subject to the CSRS. 

Although Antes proved that he had more than twenty 

years of creditable service as a federal employee, he has 

failed to show that any of his appointments were covered 

by the CSRS. The Board concluded, upon reviewing the 

Standard Forms 50 of record, that none of Antes’s service 

was covered service subject to the CSRS. Antes failed to 

demonstrate how this finding is unsupported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the Board noted that all of 

Antes’s appointments were either temporary or indefinite. 
 ANTES v. OPM 5

Service rendered “exclusively under temporary and indefinite appointments” is “excluded from CSRS retirement coverage under OPM regulations.” Quiocson v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). Again, Antes does not challenge this finding on 

appeal. Finally, the Board, relying on the Standard 

Forms 50 of record, noted that Antes was entitled to 

twenty four months of severance pay for his twenty three 

years, six months, and one day of service in accordance 

with the Collective Bargaining Agreement/Filipino Employment Personnel Instruction (“FEPI”) and that this 

provided additional support for the conclusion that his 

service was not covered under the CSRS. Initial Decision

at 5-6. Antes was covered by a different retirement 

system, the FEPI. “His receipt of benefits under a nonCSRS plan indicates that his service was not covered 

under the CSRS.” Quiocson, 490 F.3d at 1360. 

This court has considered Antes’s additional arguments and concludes that they do not require a different 

result. Because the Board’s finding that Antes never 

served in a position covered under the CSRS was supported by substantial evidence and Antes has failed to 

demonstrate any legal error in the Board’s decision, this 

court affirms the Board’s conclusion that Antes is ineligible to receive CSRS annuity benefits or to make a deposit 

into the CSRS Fund. 

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.