Court Opinion

ID: 9372996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:02.731521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.041027
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DAMIAN F. SENENCE,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-0831-16-0803-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: January 27, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

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

           Carla Robinson, 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 decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denying his
     application for deferred retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     (CSRS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this 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 administrative judge made the following factual findings, which the
     parties do not dispute on review. The appellant formally worked as a civilian
     employee of the Department of the Navy in Cubi Point, Philippines.            Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 2 at 10; Tab 3, Initial Decision (ID) at 2. He received an
     indefinite appointment in the excepted service on July 18, 1966, and his
     subsequent appointments were either temporary or indefinite appointments in the
     excepted service until he resigned on May 15, 1992. ID at 2; IAF, Tab 2 at 10,
     13, 16-17; Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3.           Below, the parties
     submitted only one Standard Form 50 (SF-50), which documents the appellant’s
     retirement plan as “other.” IAF, Tab 2 at 10; ID at 2. The SF-50 remarks section
     stated that he was covered by the retirement system applicable to employees hired
                                                                                            3

     pursuant to the Filipino Employees Personnel Instructions (FEPI). IAF , Tab 2
     at 10; ID at 3.
¶3         On January 28, 2014, more than 20 years after the appellant retired, he
     applied for a deferred retirement annuity under the CSRS based on his service
     from July 18, 1966, to May 15, 1992. 2 IAF, Tab 2 at 8-9; ID at 4. OPM issued a
     reconsideration decision denying his application. IAF, Tab 2 at 6-7.
¶4         The appellant appealed OPM’s reconsideration decision to the Board, and
     he declined a hearing on his appeal. 3 IAF, Tab 1 at 1, 3. The administrative
     judge issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s reconsideration decision . ID
     at 2, 7-11. 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 that service was performed in a position covered under
     the CSRS. ID at 7-11. The appellant has filed a petition for review. PFR File,
     Tab 1. OPM has filed a response in opposition to his petition. PFR File, Tab 4.
¶5         The appellant, as an applicant, bears the burden of proving his entitlement
     to an annuity. See 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.

     2
       The administrative judge characterized the appellant as also seeking the right to make
     a deposit to the Fund. ID at 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 6-7. However, his argument was that he was not required to
     make such a deposit to be eligible for an annuity. IAF, Tab 1 at 3; PFR File, Tab 1 at 2.
     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 and issued a separate initial decision for each appellant. ID at 2 n.1; see
     Eight Philippine Retirement Applicants v. Office of Personnel Management , MSPB
     Docket No. SF-0831-16-0806-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 6.
                                                                                     4

     § 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 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 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 the CSRS. ID at 6-7, 9. On review, the
     appellant argues that his service was covered by virtue of 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a)
     and 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c). PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-16. For the reasons discussed
     below, we agree with the administrative judge’s decision to affirm the OPM
     reconsideration decision.
¶7        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 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). 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
                                                                                           5

     redeposit). The appellant has not alleged that such contributions were withh eld.
¶8         Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm the initial decision
     as modified.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
           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 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

     4
       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

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
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 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
                                                                                  7

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.
      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
                                                                                      8

      (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
competent jurisdiction. 5   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.

5
   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

      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.
      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.