Court Opinion

ID: 9373428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:57.894372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.406018
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RICARDO R. CASTILLEJOS,                         DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-0831-17-0586-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: September 12, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Rufus F. Nobles, I, Zambales, Philippines, for the appellant.

           Jane Bancroft, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM) denying his application for a deferred retirement annuity under the Civil
     Service Retirement System (CSRS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this

     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                         2

     one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous
     findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
     the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
     the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
     involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
     the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
     the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
     After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
     has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
     review.   Therefore, we DENY the petition for review.          Except as expressly
     MODIFIED by this Final Order to find that the appellant did not seek to make a
     deposit into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (Fund), we
     AFFIRM the initial decision.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant formerly worked as a civilian employee of the Department of
     the Navy in Subic Bay, Philippines. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 27. He
     received an indefinite appointment as a Munitions Helper in the excepted service
     on October 1, 1974, and his subsequent appointments were either not -to-exceed
     appointments or indefinite appointments in the excepted service until he was
     terminated on September 26, 1986. 2 Id. at 26-34.

     2
       The Standard Form 50 (SF-50) effecting the appellant’s termination indicates his
     retirement coverage as “5.” IAF, Tab 5 at 27. The appellant’s prior SF-50 effecting a
     promotion indicates that retirement coverage “5” means “other.” Id. at 28.
                                                                                            3

¶3         On April 28, 2017, the appellant applied for a deferred retirement annuity
     under the CSRS based on his Federal service. 3          Id. at 8-10.    OPM issued a
     reconsideration decision denying his application. Id. at 6-7.
¶4         The appellant appealed OPM’s reconsideration decision to the Board and
     did not request a hearing. IAF, Tab 1. The administrative judge issued an initial
     decision affirming OPM’s reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision
     (ID) at 1, 10. She found that, although the appellant had sufficient creditable
     Federal service, he was not eligible for a deferred annuity under the CSRS
     because he failed to show that any of his service was performed in a position
     covered under the CSRS. ID at 10.
¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review. 4 Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. OPM has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 4.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6         The appellant, as an applicant for retirement benefits, has the burden of
     proving his entitlement to an annuity.          Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 791 F.2d 138, 140-41 (Fed. Cir. 1986).             To qualify for a civil
     service retirement annuity, a Government employee must complete at least
     5 years of creditable service with at least 1 of the last 2 years of his Federal
     service in a “covered” position. 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)-(b); Quiocson v. Office of
     Personnel Management, 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Covered service
     includes only an appointment that is subject to the CSRS and for which an

     3
       The administrative judge characterized the appellant as also seeking the right to make
     a deposit to the Fund. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 4-5. This characterization
     was consistent with OPM’s interpretation of a letter that the appellant submitted with
     his deferred annuity application. IAF, Tab 5 at 11-24. However, his argument was that
     he was not required to make such a deposit to be eligible for an annuity. Id. at 13;
     Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 1. Accordingly, we modify the initial decision to find
     that the appellant only applied for a deferred annuity.
     4
       The appellant’s petition for review appears to be untimely filed. However, given our
     decision on the merits of the appeal, we need not address the timeliness of the petition
     for review.
                                                                                        4

     employee must therefore deposit part of his pay into the Fund.      Encarnado v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R. 301, ¶ 7 (2011).
¶7         The administrative judge affirmed OPM’s reconsideration decision based on
     her finding that the appellant was not eligible for a CSRS annuity because he had
     not served in a position covered by CSRS. ID at 10. On review, the appellant
     argues that his service was covered by virtue of 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c) and 5 C.F.R.
     § 831.303(a). PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. For the reasons discussed below, we agree
     with the administrative judge’s decision to affirm OPM’s reconsideration
     decision.
¶8         Well-established principles of law preclude this appellant from qualifying
     for a deferred annuity. Temporary and indefinite appointments are excluded from
     CSRS coverage. Quioscon, 490 F.3d at 1360; Encarnado, 116 M.S.P.R. 301, ¶ 8;
     5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a)(1)-(2), (13)-(14).   The appellant’s reliance on 5 C.F.R.
     § 831.303(a) is misplaced, as that section only addresses whether service is
     creditable, not whether it is covered.       See Lledo v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 886 F.3d 1211, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that section
     831.303(a) does not “convert creditable service into covered service”); Tate v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 57, ¶¶ 7-8 (2008).           Further,
     5 U.S.C. § 8334(c), which permits certain individuals to make deposits, does not
     support the appellant’s claims. Section 8334(c) applies only to individuals who,
     unlike the appellant, have covered service, in other words, service during which
     contributions to the Fund were withheld.         Muyco v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 114 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶¶ 12-13 (2010); 5 C.F.R. § 831.112(a)(2)
     (interpreting section 8334(c) as permitting an individual who occupied a position
     “in which retirement deductions were properly withheld” to make a deposit or
     redeposit). The appellant has not alleged that such contributions were withheld.
¶9         Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition for review and affirm the
     initial decision.
                                                                                      5

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      You may obtain
review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of
your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate
forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following
summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not
provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and
the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule
regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of
this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your
claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file
within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.              5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).

5
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                         6

      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit    your   petition    to   the   court   at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review     of   cases      involving    a   claim    of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that su ch action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.      5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017).                 If you have a
representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before
you do, then you must file with the district court no later t han 30 calendar days
after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of
                                                                                  7

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling
condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and
to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant   to   the   Whistleblower     Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
                                                                                      8

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or
2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial
review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 6 The court of appeals must receive your
petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                               U.S. Court of Appeals
                               for the Federal Circuit
                              717 Madison Place, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federa l
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

6
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             9

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

FOR THE BOARD:                                    /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.