Court Opinion

ID: 9949728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 15:01:31.93731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:36.304649
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1960    Document: 18     Page: 1   Filed: 03/12/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                GREGORIO M. BAGAT,
                     Petitioner

                             v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1960
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. SF-0831-16-0798-I-1.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: March 12, 2024
                 ______________________

    GREGORIO M. BAGAT, Zambales, Philippines, pro se.

     KRISTIN ELAINE OLSON, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD
 THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 23-1960     Document: 18     Page: 2    Filed: 03/12/2024

 2                                               BAGAT v. OPM

      Before LOURIE, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM
     Gregorio M. Bagat (“Bagat”), a federal employee from
 1971 until 1992, petitions for review of a March 21, 2023
 final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”)
 denying his application for deferred annuity retirement
 benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System
 (“CSRS”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
     We must affirm a Board decision unless it is “arbitrary,
 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac-
 cordance with law; obtained without procedures required
 by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or unsup-
 ported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1)–(3).
 Petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to re-
 tirement benefits. Cheeseman v. OPM, 791 F.2d 138, 141
 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
      To establish eligibility for a CSRS annuity, petitioner
 must satisfy two statutory prerequisites: (1) five years of
 creditable civilian service, and (2) “at least one of his last
 two years of federal service in a covered position—i.e., ser-
 vice that is subject to the Civil Service Retirement Act.”
 Lledo v. O.P.M., 886 F.3d 1211, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (em-
 phasis added); 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)–(b) (“An employee or
 Member must complete . . . at least 1 year of creditable ci-
 vilian service during which he is subject to this subchap-
 ter.”).
     The Board held that Bagat failed to satisfy the second
 prerequisite and was thus ineligible for a CSRA annuity.
 Bagat argues that 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c) and 5 C.F.R.
 § 831.303(a) allow him to make a deposit “without any ser-
 vice covered by CSRS” and that even without a deposit he
 is entitled to an annuity. Petition at 9, 13.
     The Board’s holding that Bagat is not eligible for a
 CSRA annuity is supported by substantial evidence and
 not contrary to law or arbitrary or capricious. The Board
Case: 23-1960    Document: 18      Page: 3    Filed: 03/12/2024

 BAGAT v. OPM                                               3

 held that all the positions Bagat held during his federal
 tenure were either indefinite or not-to-exceed appoint-
 ments in the excepted service, which Bagat does not chal-
 lenge. J. App’x at 28. Those positions are not “covered”
 positions under the CSRA, even if they are full-time posi-
 tions. Lledo, 886 F.3d at 1213 (“Temporary, intermittent,
 term, and excepted indefinite appoints are not covered po-
 sitions.”); Quiocson v. OPM, 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
 2007) (holding that temporary and indefinite appointments
 are excluded from CSRS retirement coverage); 5 C.F.R.
 § 831.201(a) (excluding groups of employees from coverage
 under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, including “In-
 termittent” employees and those serving under indefinite
 appointments). See also Petition at 12 (agreeing that OPM
 may exclude “temporary, intermittent, term, and excepted
 indefinite appointment[s]” from CSRS coverage). Bagat is
 thus outside the purview of the CSRA and is not entitled to
 an annuity under that scheme.
     Moreover, as the Board correctly noted, Bagat never
 withheld any income for the CSRS, and his SF-50 forms
 indicated that his retirement benefits were designated as
 “other” rather than “CSRS.” J. App’x at 13—16. An award
 of retirement benefits under a system other than CSRS
 precludes a CSRS annuity award. Quiocson, 490 F.3d at
 1360 (rejecting eligibility for CSRS benefits because peti-
 tioner’s appointment forms showed that the positions were
 not covered by the CSRS and because petitioner received
 retirement benefits under a non-CSRS plan).
     Bagat argues that his failure to make a timely deposit
 is excusable and does not undermine his eligibility for an
 annuity. Petition at 8 (discussing Mata v. OPM, 652 F.
 App’x 931 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential)). Bagat’s ar-
 gument is misplaced. He is ineligible for an annuity not
 based on his having failed to make a timely deposit, but
 because his employment was not covered by the CSRA.
Case: 23-1960     Document: 18      Page: 4     Filed: 03/12/2024

 4                                                 BAGAT v. OPM

     Bagat also argues that 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c) and 5 C.F.R.
 § 831.303(a) converted his creditable service to covered ser-
 vice. Bagat is incorrect. 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c) allows an em-
 ployee “credited with civilian service after July 31, 1920,
 for which retirement deductions or deposits have not been
 made” to make a deposit, but that provision excludes em-
 ployees like Bagat, who were only employed in intermittent
 or indefinite positions and says nothing about expanding
 the category of persons eligible for a CSRA annuity. 5
 C.F.R. § 831.303(a) allows an employee to include “[p]eri-
 ods of creditable service . . . in determining length of service
 to compute annuity,” and allows an employee who has not
 made a deposit to be credited with a constructive deposit
 with a 10% penalty. But this provision “does not alter the
 definition of covered service or convert creditable service
 into covered service.” Lledo, 886 F.3d at 1214 (citing sev-
 eral cases). See also 5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a) (excluding cer-
 tain employees from operation of 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c) and
 related CSRA provisions).
      We find no merit to any of the other arguments raised
 in the petition. For these reasons, the decision of the MSPB
 is affirmed.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 Each party shall bear its own costs.