Court Opinion

ID: 9839839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 15:01:47.079784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:35.334691
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2085    Document: 46    Page: 1   Filed: 09/14/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                RONALD KEITH WATKINS,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2022-2085
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-0831-16-0353-I-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: September 14, 2023
                  ______________________

    RONALD KEITH WATKINS, Silver Spring, MD, pro se.

     DANIEL HOFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD
 THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

     Before TARANTO, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
                        Judges.
Case: 22-2085    Document: 46      Page: 2    Filed: 09/14/2023

 2                                            WATKINS v. OPM

 CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
     Ronald Keith Watkins petitions for review of a Merit
 Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision affirming a fi-
 nal decision of the Office of Personnel Management
 (“OPM”) finding that Mr. Watkins was ineligible for an im-
 mediate retirement annuity under the Civil Service Retire-
 ment System. Watkins v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-0831-
 16-0353-I-1, 2016 WL 3988775 (M.S.P.B. July 20, 2016)
 (“Decision”) (App. 1–13). 1 We affirm.
                     I.    BACKGROUND
      Mr. Watkins held a series of appointed positions with
 the government of the District of Columbia. Decision at 2.
 He first began working for the government on November
 10, 1981, and resigned on September 16, 1983. See App.
 55; Watkins v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-0831-16-0353-I-
 1 (M.S.P.B.) (“M.S.P.B. Appeal R.”), Tab 18 at 35 (OPM’s
 certified Individual Retirement Record for Mr. Watkins). 2
 Later rejoining the government, Mr. Watkins was ap-
 pointed to another position with the government of the Dis-
 trict of Columbia on November 11, 1984, where he worked
 until his resignation on June 14, 1985. See App. 55;
 M.S.P.B. Appeal R., Tab 18 at 34 (Individual Retirement
 Record). Mr. Watkins’s third and final position with the
 government started on September 2, 1986, and ended on

     1    “App.” citations in this opinion refer to the appen-
 dix filed by Respondent. Moreover, because the reported
 version of the Board’s decision is not paginated, citations
 in this opinion are to the version of the Board’s decision
 included in the appendix. For example, Decision at 1 is
 found at App. 1.
     2    Because the parties did not include certain rele-
 vant materials from the underlying record in the appellate
 record, we have cited to such materials from the underlying
 record where appropriate.
Case: 22-2085     Document: 46    Page: 3    Filed: 09/14/2023

 WATKINS v. OPM                                            3

 February 7, 2003, when he was terminated by the District
 of Columbia Department of Corrections. See M.S.P.B. Ap-
 peal R., Tab 18 at 31, 33 (Individual Retirement Record);
 Decision at 2.
       After his termination, Mr. Watkins successfully
 brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Colum-
 bia concerning certain protected whistleblower disclosures.
 See Decision at 2; App. 38–39. The trial court awarded Mr.
 Watkins back pay with interest from the date of his termi-
 nation on February 7, 2003, until the date of the trial
 court’s hearing on May 5, 2004, and awarded him “front
 pay, in lieu of reinstatement, in the amount equivalent to
 (18) months salary, with interest . . . from May 5, 2004,”
 i.e., front pay until November 6, 2005. See M.S.P.B. Appeal
 R., Tab 18 at 18–20; see also Watkins v. District of Colum-
 bia, 944 A.2d 1077, 1078–85 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2008); App.
 55. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the
 trial court’s judgment. Watkins, 944 A.2d at 1078–85.
     In 2013 and 2014, Mr. Watkins submitted requests for
 an immediate retirement annuity under the Comprehen-
 sive Merit Personnel Act with the District of Columbia De-
 partment of Human Resources and the District of
 Columbia Department of Corrections. See App. 34; Deci-
 sion at 2. On January 6, 2015, the Superior Court of the
 District of Columbia dismissed Mr. Watkins’s action for
 lack of jurisdiction. See App. 33–35. Because Mr. Watkins
 was first employed by the government of the District of Co-
 lumbia prior to October 1, 1987, his request was governed
 by the Civil Service Retirement System, not the Compre-
 hensive Merit Personnel Act. See App. 34–35. The trial
 court instructed Mr. Watkins to “file his request for imme-
 diate retirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8336 with the Of-
 fice of Personnel Management pursuant to that agency’s
 regulatory authority.” App. 35. The District of Columbia
 Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. See
 App. 36–37.
Case: 22-2085     Document: 46      Page: 4    Filed: 09/14/2023

 4                                              WATKINS v. OPM

     Mr. Watkins submitted an Application for Immediate
 Retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System
 with OPM on August 20, 2015. See App. 49–53. OPM de-
 nied Mr. Watkins’s application and his reconsideration re-
 quest. See App. 54–57. OPM explained that agency
 records indicated that on the date of his separation from
 service on November 6, 2005, Mr. Watkins was forty-eight
 years old and accrued twenty-one years, seven months, and
 sixteen days of creditable service time, such that he did not
 meet the immediate retirement requirements under 5
 U.S.C. § 8336. See id.
      On February 15, 2016, Mr. Watkins appealed OPM’s
 final decision to the Board. See App. 59–92. In an initial
 decision, the administrative judge affirmed OPM’s final de-
 cision. See Decision at 1–13. The administrative judge
 found that OPM correctly determined that Mr. Watkins
 was not an “employee” for retirement credit purposes un-
 der the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a) beyond the No-
 vember 6, 2005 separation date listed in his Individual
 Retirement Record. See id. at 4–7. The administrative
 judge concluded that OPM correctly determined that Mr.
 Watkins did not meet the age or creditable service time re-
 quirements at the time of his November 6, 2005 separation
 date to qualify for immediate retirement under 5 U.S.C.
 § 8336. See id. at 3–7.
     Mr. Watkins filed a petition for review of the adminis-
 trative judge’s initial decision, which the Board denied. See
 App. 14–25. The administrative judge’s initial decision be-
 came the Board’s final decision under 5 C.F.R.
 § 1201.113(b). See App. 15. Mr. Watkins now appeals from
 the final decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(9).
                      II.    DISCUSSION
     We set aside a Board decision only if it is “(1) arbitrary,
 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac-
 cordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures
Case: 22-2085     Document: 46      Page: 5     Filed: 09/14/2023

 WATKINS v. OPM                                                5

 required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed;
 or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(c); see also Standley v. Dep’t of Energy, 26 F.4th 937,
 942 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2873 (2022).
 Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a
 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
 conclusion.” Standley, 26 F.4th at 942 (citation omitted).
 Mr. Watkins has the burden of proving that he is entitled
 to retirement benefits. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(ii); see
 also Cheeseman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 141
 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1037 (1987).
     Because Mr. Watkins was first employed by the gov-
 ernment of the District of Columbia on November 10, 1981,
 App. 55, his request for an immediate retirement annuity
 is governed by the Civil Service Retirement System. See 5
 U.S.C. § 8331(1)(G) (extending Civil Service Retirement
 System coverage to “individual[s] first employed by the
 government of the District of Columbia before October 1,
 1987”); Muwwakkil v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 18 F.3d 921, 922
 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (explaining that an “employee of the
 government of the District of Columbia” who was employed
 prior to October 1, 1987, was “eligible for participation” “in
 the federal Civil Service Retirement System.” (citing 5
 U.S.C. § 8331(1)(G))).
      Section 8336 of Title 5 of the United States Code pro-
 vides that an employee is eligible for immediate retirement
 if, on the date of his or her separation from service, the em-
 ployee is (1) at least fifty-five years old with thirty years of
 service, (2) at least sixty years old with twenty years of ser-
 vice, or (3) at least fifty years old with twenty years of ser-
 vice as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, nuclear
 materials courier, or customs and border protection officer,
 or any combination of such service totaling at least twenty
Case: 22-2085     Document: 46      Page: 6     Filed: 09/14/2023

 6                                              WATKINS v. OPM

 years. 5 U.S.C. § 8336(a)–(c)(1); 3 see also Nebblett v. Off. of
 Pers. Mgmt., 237 F.3d 1353, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
 Lengerich v. Dep’t of Interior, 454 F.3d 1367, 1367–68 (Fed.
 Cir. 2006). In order to be considered an “employee” for civil
 service retirement credit purposes, the individual must
 have been (1) appointed in the civil service by a federal of-
 ficial acting in his or her official capacity; (2) engaged in
 the performance of a federal function under authority of
 law or an Executive act; and (3) subject to the supervision
 of the federal official while engaged in the performance of
 the duties of his or her position. See 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a); 4
 Horner v. Acosta, 803 F.2d 687, 691 (Fed. Cir. 1986). All
 three elements must be met. Horner, 803 F.2d at 691.
     At issue in this appeal is whether Mr. Watkins was an
 “employee” according to 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a) after November
 6, 2005—the termination date listed on Mr. Watkins’s In-
 dividual Retirement Record and therefore the date that
 OPM and the Board used to calculate Mr. Watkins’s age
 and creditable service time for immediate retirement un-
 der 5 U.S.C. § 8336. See Decision at 3–7; App. 54–57;
 M.S.P.B. Appeal R., Tab 18 at 30. On appeal, Mr. Watkins
 contends that the termination date on the Individual Re-
 tirement Record is incorrect because he was employed after
 November 6, 2005, until the present, 5 and therefore meets

     3   5 U.S.C. § 8336 identifies other combinations of age
 and service requirements not relevant to this appeal.
      4  The term “employee” for this purpose is defined in
 5 U.S.C. § 8331(1)(A) by reference to 5 U.S.C. § 2105.
      5  Mr. Watkins argues on appeal that he has been em-
 ployed by the government of the District of Columbia from
 November 6, 2005 “to this very date,” Pet’r’s Suppl. Open-
 ing Br. 8, but argued before OPM and the Board that his
 separation date was August 20, 2015. See App. 49, 61. This
 difference in dates is insignificant because we find that Mr.
 Watkins was not employed beyond November 6, 2005.
Case: 22-2085     Document: 46     Page: 7    Filed: 09/14/2023

 WATKINS v. OPM                                             7

 the age and creditable service time requirements for imme-
 diate retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336. See Pet’r’s Suppl.
 Opening Br. 3–4, 8–10. In support, Mr. Watkins raises
 three main arguments, all of which concern the legal effect
 of certain court decisions. We find Mr. Watkins’s argu-
 ments unpersuasive and address each in turn.
      First, Mr. Watkins contends that the 2015 decisions of
 the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the Dis-
 trict of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered OPM to grant
 Mr. Watkins’s request for immediate retirement, and
 OPM—and now the Board—defied the orders. See Pet’r’s
 Suppl. Opening Br. 3–4, 6–9; Pet’r’s Reply Br. 1–2, 5–6, 13–
 14. We disagree. As the Board correctly found, the 2015
 decisions did not contain such an order. See Decision at 4–
 5. Rather, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
 and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals explained
 that Mr. Watkins’s retirement request was governed by the
 Civil Service Retirement System, not the Comprehensive
 Merit Personnel Act, and simply instructed Mr. Watkins to
 instead file his request with OPM, which had the relevant
 regulatory authority. See App. 34–35 (Trial court instruct-
 ing Mr. Watkins to “file his request for immediate retire-
 ment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8336 with the Office of
 Personnel Management pursuant to that agency’s regula-
 tory authority.”), 36–37 (District of Columbia Court of Ap-
 peals explaining that Mr. Watkins “may pursue relief
 before the Office of Personnel Management.”). Neither
 court assessed the merits of Mr. Watkins’s immediate re-
 tirement request under 5 U.S.C. § 8336 because neither
 court had jurisdiction to do so. Accordingly, the Board did
 not err in finding that the Superior Court of the District of
 Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
 “d[id] not direct OPM to provide [Mr. Watkins] with an im-
 mediate annuity.” Decision at 5.
     Second, Mr. Watkins contends that the decisions ad-
 dressing his whistleblower case and awarding him dam-
 ages, back pay, and front pay “dictate[d] that [he] was not
Case: 22-2085     Document: 46     Page: 8    Filed: 09/14/2023

 8                                             WATKINS v. OPM

 terminated” after November 6, 2005, and was instead em-
 ployed by the government of the District of Columbia “since
 September 2, 1986 [through the present] without separa-
 tion.” Pet’r’s Reply Br. 6–8 (emphasis removed); see also
 Pet’r’s Suppl. Opening Br. 2–10; Pet’r’s Reply Br. 1–2, 13–
 14. Mr. Watkins argues that such decisions are entitled to
 preclusive effect. See Pet’r’s Suppl. Opening Br. 4–10.
 Contrary to Mr. Watkins’s assertions, the decisions ad-
 dressing his whistleblower case did not deem his employ-
 ment as continuing beyond November 6, 2005. Indeed, as
 the Board correctly determined, these decisions found the
 opposite. See Decision at 6. In his whistleblower case, the
 Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially ordered
 that Mr. Watkins be reinstated to his former position and
 be awarded back pay with interest. See M.S.P.B. Appeal
 R., Tab 2 at 7–8 (trial court’s January 28, 2004 order).
 However, the trial court later specifically rescinded that re-
 instatement order and awarded Mr. Watkins “front pay, in
 lieu of reinstatement, in the amount equivalent to (18)
 months salary, with interest . . . from May 5, 2004,” i.e.,
 front pay until November 6, 2005. See M.S.P.B. Appeal R.,
 Tab 18 at 19 (trial court’s August 2, 2004 order) (emphasis
 added); see also Watkins, 944 A.2d at 1080 & n.2. The trial
 court’s judgment was later affirmed by the District of Co-
 lumbia Court of Appeals. See Watkins, 944 A.2d at 1080–
 85 (emphasis added). These decisions make clear that Mr.
 Watkins was not reinstated to his former position with the
 District of Columbia Department of Corrections. Rather,
 Mr. Watkins was awarded 18 months of front pay, termi-
 nating on November 6, 2005. See M.S.P.B. Appeal R., Tab
 18 at 30 (Individual Retirement Record listing Mr. Wat-
 kins’s termination date as November 6, 2005). We there-
 fore agree with the Board’s interpretation of these
 decisions.
     Third, Mr. Watkins contends that a related decision is-
 sued by this court “dictate[d] that [he] was not terminated”
 after November 6, 2005, and that this decision is entitled
Case: 22-2085     Document: 46     Page: 9    Filed: 09/14/2023

 WATKINS v. OPM                                             9

 to preclusive effect. Pet’r’s Reply Br. 8 (emphasis re-
 moved); see also Pet’r’s Suppl. Opening Br. 2–10; Pet’r’s Re-
 ply Br. 9–14. The related decision, on which Mr. Watkins
 relies, concerns the same claim for immediate retirement
 at issue in this appeal. See Watkins v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
 737 Fed. App’x 996, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2018). While Mr. Wat-
 kins’s petition for review of the administrative judge’s de-
 cision was still pending, OPM issued a second initial
 decision denying Mr. Watkins’s same claim for immediate
 retirement. Id. However, upon realizing that its decision
 was duplicative of its first initial decision, OPM rescinded
 its second initial decision. Id. Mr. Watkins nonetheless
 appealed from OPM’s second initial decision, but the ad-
 ministrative judge dismissed the appeal because the ap-
 pealed decision was duplicative and not final. Id. When
 Mr. Watkins filed an appeal of the decision with this court,
 this court affirmed the Board’s decision. Id. at 996–98. No-
 tably, nowhere in this court’s decision does it conclude that
 Mr. Watkins was employed beyond November 6, 2005.
      Accordingly, Mr. Watkins has failed to show error in
 finding that he was terminated by November 6, 2005. See
 Decision at 5–7. Substantial evidence supports the finding
 that, after November 6, 2005, “[t]here is no evidence in the
 record that [Mr. Watkins] engaged in the performance of a
 [f]ederal function under authority of law or an executive
 act . . . nor is there any evidence to indicate that he was
 under the supervision of a named [f]ederal (or DC Govern-
 ment) official”—both of which are required to be considered
 an “employee” for civil service retirement credit purposes
 under 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a). See id. at 5–6; see also Horner,
 803 F.2d at 691. Consequently, the Board did not err in
 finding that Mr. Watkins failed to perform creditable ser-
 vice after November 6, 2005, and therefore did not err in
 using this date to calculate Mr. Watkins’s age and credita-
 ble service time for immediate retirement under 5 U.S.C.
 § 8336.
Case: 22-2085    Document: 46     Page: 10    Filed: 09/14/2023

 10                                           WATKINS v. OPM

      OPM found, and the Board agreed, that at the time of
 Mr. Watkins’s separation from service on November 6,
 2005, Mr. Watkins—born in August 1957—was forty-eight
 years old and accrued twenty-one years, seven months, and
 sixteen days of creditable service time. See App. 54–57; De-
 cision at 2, 7. Accordingly, he did not meet the age and
 creditable service time requirements for immediate retire-
 ment entitlement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336. Mr. Watkins does
 not raise any challenge to this finding other than his failed
 challenge concerning the separation date. However, even
 if Mr. Watkins did raise such a challenge, we conclude that
 the Board did not err in affirming OPM’s decision and that
 substantial evidence supports the findings with respect to
 Mr. Watkins’s age and creditable service time. See Deci-
 sion at 7; App. 54–57. Because Mr. Watkins did not meet
 the age or creditable service time requirements on Novem-
 ber 6, 2005, we conclude that the Board did not err in find-
 ing that Mr. Watkins was not eligible for immediate
 retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336.
                     III.   CONCLUSION
    We have considered Mr. Watkins’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
 sons, we affirm the Board’s final decision.
                        AFFIRMED