Court Opinion

ID: 9372872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:15.21179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:38.262057
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ANTONIO T. PINLAC,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-0831-16-0800-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: February 10, 2023
       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             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1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 deferred retirement under the Civil Service
     Retirement System (CSRS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 af fected 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 administrative judge made the following factual findings, which the
     parties do not dispute on review. The appellant formerly worked as a civilian
     employee of the Department of the Navy (Navy) in Subic Bay, Ph ilippines.
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 2 at 10; Tab 3, Initial Decision (ID) at 2. He
     received an indefinite appointment as a Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
     Mechanic on October 20, 1965, and his appointment was converted to an excepted
     service-indefinite appointment on September 25, 1966. IAF, Tab 2 at 11. Based
     on the single Standard Form 50 (SF-50) submitted below, the appellant appears to
     have served in this excepted service-indefinite appointment until his resignation
     on December 26, 1977. Id. The SF-50 documents the appellant’s retirement plan
     coverage as “4” and “none.” Id. at 10-11.
                                                                                            3

¶3         On July 22, 2014, the appellant applied for a deferred retirement annuity
     under the CSRS based on his service with the Navy from October 20, 1965, to
     December 26, 1977. 2       OPM issued a reconsideration decision denying his
     application. Id. at 6-7. The appellant appealed OPM’s reconsideration decision
     to the Board, and he declined a hearing on the appeal. 3 The administrative judge
     issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s reconsideration decision. ID at 11.
     She found that, although the appellant had sufficient creditable Federal service,
     he was not eligible for a deferred annuity because he failed to show that any of
     that service was performed in a position covered under the CSRS. ID at 10-11.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision. Petition
     for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. OPM has filed a response in opposition to his
     petition. PFR File, Tab 4.

                     DISCUSSIONS OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The appellant, as an applicant, 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 one 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
     2
       The administrative judge characterized the appellant’s appeal as also seeking the right
     to make a deposit to the Fund. ID at 3-4. This characterization was consistent with
     OPM’s interpretation of a letter that the appellant submitted with his deferred annuity
     application. IAF, Tab 2 at 4-7. However, the record reflects that his argument was that
     he was not required to make such a deposit to be eligible for an annuity. IAF, Tab 1
     at 3, Tab 2 at 14-16; 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.
     3
      This appeal was originally consolidated with seven other simultaneously filed appeals
     making virtually identical claims, but the administrative judge terminated the
     consolidation on the same date that she issued the initial decision. ID at 1 n.1; see
     Eight Philippine Retirement Applicants v. Office of Personnel Management , MSPB
     Docket No. SF-0831-16-0806-I-1, Consolidation Appeal File, Tab 6.
                                                                                           4

     is subject to the CSRS and for which an 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).
¶6         The administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming 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 the CSRS.
     ID at 7-11.      On review, the appellant appears to argue that his service was
     covered because 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), a regulation issued in 1983, “retroactively
     vested the CSRS deposit” to his prior service. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2-16. He also
     argues that the retirement system available to employees hired pursuant to the
     Filipino Employees Personnel Instructions (FEPI) is not another retirement
     system for Government employees that would preclude his coverage under the
     CSRS.       Id. at 16-17.   In addition, he submits documents with his petition for
     review. 4    For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the administrative
     judge’s decision to affirm OPM’s reconsideration decision.
¶7         Well-established principles of law preclude this appellant from qualifying
     for a deferred retirement annuity.      Temporary and indefinite appointments ar e
     excluded from CSRS coverage.            Quiocson, 490 F.3d at 1360; Encarnado,
     116 M.S.P.R. 301, ¶ 8; 5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a)(1)-(2), (6), (13)-(14).               The
     appellant’s reliance on 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a) is misplaced, as that section
     addresses only whether service is creditable, not whether it is covered. See Tate
     v. Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 57, ¶¶ 7-8 (2008) (explaining
     that section 831.303(a) provides CSRS credit for pre-1969 Federal service).

     4
       We decline to consider these new documents on review. The appellant has not
     indicated why these documents, which are dated 1959, 1980, 1985, and 1992, were not
     available below despite his due diligence. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service,
     3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980) (explaining that under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will
     not consider evidence submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a
     showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due
     diligence).
                                                                                           5

     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.
¶8         The appellant’s argument regarding the FEPI is likewise unavailing.
     Receipt of retirement benefits under a non-CSRS plan, such as the FEPI, indicates
     that service is not covered. 5      Espiritu v. Office of Personnel Management,
     114 M.S.P.R. 192, ¶ 8 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 431 F. App’x 897 (Fed. Cir.
     2011). Section 8331(1)(L)(ii) of Title 5 provides that an employee who received
     benefits under a non-CSRS plan available to Government employees does not
     have covered service. Quiocson, 490 F.3d at 1360. The U.S. Court of Appeals
     for the Federal Circuit has found the FEPI to be such a retirement system, and the
     appellant has provided no evidence to the contrary. Id.; PFR File, Tab 1 at 16-18.
¶9         Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition for review and affirm the
     initial decision, as modified.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
           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

     5
       Here, because the record reflects that the appellant’s retirement coverage was “none,”
     there is no indication that he was covered under the FEPI.
     6
       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

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 an d
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).
      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
                                                                                    7

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 tha t such 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 than 30 calendar days
after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of
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.
                                                                                 8

      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
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
                                                                                      9

competent jurisdiction. 7   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 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.

7
   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.
                                                                       10

      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.