Court Opinion

ID: 9373630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:18.422418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.705987
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ANDREW J. BLASCO,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        PH-0831-16-0141-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: June 24, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Andrew J. Blasco, Kensington, Connecticut, pro se.

           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 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review
     of the initial decision, which reversed its decision finding that the appellant was
     not entitled to retirement benefits. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     OPM’s petition for review and REVERSE the initial decision.                 OPM’s
     reconsideration decision is AFFIRMED.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant was employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
     from 1977 to 1988 as a Biomedical Equipment Support Specialist on a full -time
     schedule. On his separation, he sought and received a refund of his Civil Service
     Retirement System (CSRS) retirement contributions. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 8 at 39. He was reemployed in 1989 on an intermittent schedule under an
     appointment that was excluded from CSRS coverage. Id. at 25. On April 22,
     1993, while still under an intermittent schedule, his appointment was converted to
     one that conferred CSRS coverage. 2 Id. On November 11, 2014, the appellant
     filed an application for a deferred annuity, id. at 21-28, based on his
     November 30, 2014 retirement, id. at 30.
¶3        OPM denied the appellant’s application, initially and on reconsideration ,
     explaining that, when he retired, he was age 62 with 18 years, 2 months, and
     12 days of creditable service, and that, due to the nature of his intermittent
     appointment, he did not meet the “one out of two” requirement for an annuity.
     IAF, Tab 8 at 6-8, 16. In its reconsideration decision, OPM referred to 5 U.S.C
     § 8333(b), stating that the appellant “did not complete 1 year of continued service
     within the 2 years immediately preceding [his] separation in a position subject to
     the [Civil Service] Retirement Act.” Id. at 8.
¶4        On appeal, the appellant argued that, during his last period of employment,
     he was in a covered position because contributions were withheld from his pay,
     and that therefore he did meet the “1 out of 2” requirement. IAF, Tab 16. He
     requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1 at 1.

     2
       The appellant was under CSRS Offset, which is the same as CSRS, but it is also
     coordinated with Social Security. IAF, Tab 16 at 14.
                                                                                        3

¶5         Thereafter, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he
     considered the parties’ differing views on the applicability of 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b)
     to the appellant’s situation. IAF, Tab 26, Initial Decision (ID). Specifically, the
     administrative judge considered OPM’s position that “covered service” must be
     calculated like “creditable service” which requires a determination of actual time
     worked, meaning that an intermittent employee like the appellant must have
     worked the equivalent of 1 “work year” of creditable, covered service during his
     last 2 years of service to qualify for retirement benefits, which the appellant did
     not. 3 ID at 3-4. The administrative judge also considered the appellant’s position
     that the applicable law only requires that 1 of his last 2 years of service have been
     covered service, and that the creditable service calculation is irrelevant.      The
     administrative judge found the appellant’s position “persuasive,” ID at 4, and “the
     more reasonable” of the two, ID at 6, and on that basis reversed OPM’s
     reconsideration decision, ID at 1, 7. The administrative judge remanded the case
     to OPM and ordered it to process the appellant’s retirement benefits application
     and calculate his annuity consistent with the administrative judge’s initial
     decision, and then to issue a new reconsideration decision. ID at 7.
¶6         The agency has filed a petition for review, Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 1, to which the appellant has responded, PFR File, Tab 3.

                                         ANALYSIS
¶7         The appellant’s entitlement to an annuity is governed by chapter 83 of
     title 5 of the U.S. Code.     Two types of Federal service are pertinent to a
     determination of whether an individual is entitled to a retirement annuity under
     the Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRA)—“creditable service” and “covered
     service.” Almost all Federal service is creditable service.      Covered service is
     more limited in scope, referring to Federal employees who are “subject to” the

     3
       The appellant worked 1 month and 10 days in 2013 and 27 days in 2014, his last
     2 years of service. IAF, Tab 8 at 18-19.
                                                                                          4

      CSRA, i.e., employees who must deposit part of their basic pay into the Civil
      Service Retirement and Disability Fund (the Fund).            Noveloso v. Office of
      Personnel Management, 45 M.S.P.R. 321, 323 (1990), aff’d, 925 F.2d 1478 (Fed.
      Cir. 1991) (Table).
¶8          There are two requirements that govern eligibility for an annuity under the
      CSRA. 5 U.S.C. § 8333. The first is that the employee must have completed at
      least 5 years of civilian service. 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a). There is no question that
      the appellant met this requirement.       In finding that he also met the second
      requirement, the administrative judge agreed with the appellant that the law
      requires only that 1 of his last 2 years have been covered service, 5 U.S.C.
      § 8333(b), which it was. ID at 5; IAF, Tab 8 at 31. 4
¶9          However, the administrative judge misreads 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b) as not
      requiring that 1 of the appellant’s last 2 years also be creditable service.
      Subpart (b) requires that an employee has completed, within the last 2 years
      before any separation from service, except a separation because of death or
      disability, at least 1 year of creditable civilian service that is covered service.
      The issue here is whether, because of his intermittent schedule, the appellant had
      1 year of creditable service out of his last 2 years of service.
¶10         Intermittent employment means employment without a regularly scheduled
      tour of duty. 5 C.F.R. § 340.401(b). There is no dispute that the appellant had an
      intermittent work schedule. IAF, Tab 16 at 14. OPM’s Civil Service Retirement
      System (CSRS) and Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) Handbook for
      Personnel and Payroll Offices (Handbook) explains how such service is credited.
      De Laet v. Office of Personnel Management, 70 M.S.P.R. 390, 394 (1996)
      (recognizing that the Handbook is an authoritative interpretation of employee

      4
        Early on in the adjudication of this appeal, OPM took the positon that the appellant
      had not been engaged in “covered service” for 1 of the last 2 years befor e his
      separation. IAF, Tab 8 at 4. Ultimately OPM acknowledged that the appellant’s
      service was covered because retirement contributions were deducted from his salary
      during his last appointment. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9.
                                                                                            5

      rights and agency responsibilities under Federal retirement laws); see Handbook
      (April        1998),        https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications-
      forms/csrsfers-handbook/ (last visited June 23, 2022).         It provides that, with
      certain exceptions not applicable here, such employees can only receive credit for
      time they actually served.      See Handbook, Section 20A3.1-1(C)(1); see also
      Handbook, Section 50A2.1-3(G)(1) (generally, when an individual is employed
      on an intermittent basis without a prearranged regularly scheduled tour of duty,
      only the actual days in a pay status are credited). Therefore, even though the
      appellant’s service was covered service, because he only worked 1 month and
      10 days in 2013 and 27 days in 2014, his last 2 years of service, IAF, Tab 8
      at 18-19, he did not complete 1 year of creditable civilian service prior to his
      2014 separation, and therefore he is not entitled to an annuity. 5            5 U.S.C.
      § 8333(b).
¶11         In reversing the initial decision, we agree with OPM that the administrative
      judge erred in crediting the appellant’s witnesses, DVA employees who worked in
      the agency’s retirement counseling center, who testified at the hearing that, over
      the years, other similarly situated employees had received retirement benefits
      from OPM. ID at 6; Hearing Compact Disc. That testimony is not relevant to the
      matter at issue because it involves statutory interpretation, which is a question of
      law, and therefore such unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence has no bearing on this
      case. Herrera v. United States, 849 F.2d 1416, 1417-18 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Nor do
      we attach any significance to the fact that OPM originally found the appellant
      eligible for benefits, IAF, Tab 16 at 5, and then, in its subsequent decision, found
      that he was not, id. at 6, or that, even then, it incorrectly maintained that his
      ineligibility was due to the fact that his service was not covered , id. Payments of
      money from the Fund are limited to those authorized by statute, see Office of

      5
       Notwithstanding this disposition, the appellant is entitled to have returned to him the
      amounts deducted from his pay during this period of service for which no eligibility for
      an annuity has been established. 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b).
                                                                                      6

Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 416 (1990), and the
requirements for eligibility for a retirement benefit are substantive legal
requirements that allow for no administrative discretion by OPM or by the Board.
Andrada v. Office of Personnel Management, 74 M.S.P.R. 226, 233, aff’d,
132 F.3d 55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Table).

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
      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

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.
                                                                                         7

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
                                                                                  8

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
                                                                                      9

      (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. 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.

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

      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.