Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-480_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BABCOCK v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF 
SOCIAL SECURITY 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–480.  Argued October 13, 2021—Decided January 13, 2022 

This case concerns retirement benefits due under the Social Security Act 
for a retired “military technician (dual status),” 10 U. S. C. §10216, a 
civilian position formerly held by David Babcock.  Like all dual-status 
technicians, Babcock was required to maintain membership in the Na-
tional  Guard.    For  his  full-time  job  as  a  technician,  which  included 
work as a test pilot and pilot instructor, Babcock received civil-service 
pay and Civil Service Retirement System pension payments from the
Office  of  Personnel  Management.    For  his  separate  National  Guard 
service, which included part-time drills, training exercises, and one ac-
tive-duty deployment, Babcock received military pay and military pen-
sion  payments  from  a  different  arm  of  the  Federal  Government,  the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service.  Upon retirement, Babcock 
applied to the Social Security Administration for benefits.  The agency
granted Babcock benefits but applied a statutory “windfall elimination
provision” and reduced the amount of benefits to reflect Babcock’s re-
ceipt  of  civil-service  pension  payments  for  his  work  as  a  technician. 
Babcock sought reconsideration, arguing that the reduction should not 
apply  because  the  pension  payments  at  issue  fell  within  a  statutory
exception for payments “based wholly on service as a member of a uni-
formed service.”  The agency denied reconsideration, and Babcock ex-
hausted available avenues of agency review before filing suit in federal 
court.  The District Court upheld the agency’s decision, and the Sixth
Circuit affirmed. 

Held: Civil-service  pension  payments  based  on  employment  as  a  dual-
status  military  technician  are  not  payments  based  on  “service  as  a 
member of a uniformed service” under 42 U. S. C. §415(a)(7)(A)(III).