Opinion ID: 774674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requirements for LEO Retirement Credit

Text: 8 Federal police officers are only eligible for early retirement credit under the CSRS or FERS if they meet the statutory definition of a LEO. Both statutes define an LEO as one who holds a position, the primary duties of which involve the investigation, apprehension, or detention of those suspected or convicted of federal offenses. 5 U.S.C. 8331(20), 8401(17). By regulation, OPM has defined primary duties in a three-part test. Primary duties are those duties that: 9 i. Are paramount in influence or weight, that is constitute the basic reasons for the existence of the position; 10 ii. Occupy a substantial portion of the individual's working time over a typical work cycle; and 11 iii. Are assigned on a regular and recurring basis. 12 5 C.F.R. 831.902, 842.802 (emphasis added). In general, if an employee spends at least fifty percent of his or her time performing certain duties, those duties are his or her primary duties. Id. Under the regulations, [d]uties that are of an emergency, incidental, or temporary nature cannot be considered 'primary' even if they meet the substantial portion of time criterion. Id. Further, the regulations state that the definition of a LEO does not include an employee whose primary duties involve maintaining order, protecting life and property, guarding against or inspecting for violations of law, or investigating persons other than those who are suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States. Id. (emphasis added). The police officers seeking LEO retirement coverage bear the burden of proving entitlement by preponderant evidence. 5 C.F.R. 1201.56(a)(2). Eligibility for LEO retirement coverage must be strictly construed, because the LEO retirement program is 'more costly to the government than more traditional retirement plans and often results in the retirement of important people at a time when they would otherwise have continued to work for a number of years.' Bingaman, 127 F.3d at 1435 (quoting Morgan v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 773 F.2d 282, 286-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).