Dullas v. Office of Personnel Management ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    VILLARDO D. DULLAS,
    Petitioner
    v.
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
    Respondent
    ______________________
    2017-1683
    ______________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in No. SF-0831-16-0165-I-1.
    ______________________
    Decided: September 7, 2017
    ______________________
    VILLARDO D. DULLAS, San Narciso, Zambales, Philip-
    pines, pro se.
    DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation
    Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
    Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represent-
    ed by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,
    FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.; PAUL ST. HILLAIRE, Office of
    General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, Wash-
    ington, DC.
    ______________________
    2                                           DULLAS   v. OPM
    Before MOORE, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Villardo Dullas appeals from the final decision of the
    Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming the
    determination by the Office of Personnel Management
    (OPM) that he does not qualify for a Civil Service Retire-
    ment System (CSRS) annuity. Dullas v. Office of Pers.
    Mgmt., No. SF-0831-16-0165-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 28, 2016).
    Because the Board’s decision is in accordance with the law
    and is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Mr. Dullas served as a civilian welder at the United
    States Naval Ship Repair Facility in Subic Bay, Philip-
    pines, from August 1971 through July 1992. From Au-
    gust 1971 through January 1980, his service consisted of
    numerous temporary appointments limited to one year or
    less. App’x 10. From January 1980 through July 1992,
    he served under an indefinite excepted service appoint-
    ment in the same welder position. In July 1992, he was
    terminated as part of a reduction in force with seventeen
    months of severance pay. 
    Id. The Standard
    Form 50s (SF50s) that document the
    employment status of Mr. Dullas reflect that he served in
    a full-time excepted service position, with retirement
    coverage listed as “None” or “Other.” App’x 10–11. Dur-
    ing his service, no contributions from his pay were made
    to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
    (Fund). App’x 14.
    In September 2013, Mr. Dullas applied for a deferred
    retirement annuity under the CSRS. The OPM denied his
    application for lack of “covered” service. App’x 11, App’x
    28–33. Mr. Dullas then appealed to the Board, which
    issued an initial decision affirming the OPM’s decision.
    App’x 9. In December 2016, the Board issued a final
    DULLAS   v. OPM                                            3
    order that affirmed and adopted the initial decision.
    App’x 5–8. The Board found that the service by Mr.
    Dullas was under temporary and indefinite appointments
    that were excluded from Civil Service Retirement Act
    (CSRA) coverage. App’x 6. The Board also rejected Mr.
    Dullas’ argument that 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a) retroactively
    implemented automatic coverage for all personnel that
    rendered service between 1920 and 1980. App’x 6–7.
    Mr. Dullas timely petitioned this court for review. We
    have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
    DISCUSSION
    Our scope of review of a decision of the Board is lim-
    ited. The Board’s decision must be affirmed unless we
    conclude that it was “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
    discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law;
    (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or
    regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
    substantial evidence[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see Dela Rosa
    v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 
    583 F.3d 762
    , 764 (Fed. Cir.
    2009).
    “To qualify for a civil service retirement annuity, a
    government employee ordinarily must complete at least
    five years of creditable service, and at least one of the two
    years prior to separation must be ‘covered service,’ i.e.,
    service that is subject to the [CSRA].” Quioscon v. Office
    of Pers. Mgmt., 
    490 F.3d 1358
    , 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 5
    U.S.C. § 8333. Service under temporary or indefinite
    appointments is excluded from coverage by the CSRA.
    
    Quioscon, 490 F.3d at 1360
    ; 5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a).
    The record shows that Mr. Dullas served temporary
    and indefinite appointments from 1971 to 1992. App’x 10.
    Although this may constitute creditable service, Mr.
    Dullas has failed to show that he served in a position
    covered by the CSRA. Mr. Dullas’ SF50s only stated
    “None” or “Other,” and he offers no evidence that the
    4                                             DULLAS   v. OPM
    forms contained errors or were otherwise incomplete.
    Further, the appointment forms show that no CSRS
    retirement benefit contributions were ever deducted from
    his pay, and that he received severance pay under a non-
    CSRS plan (i.e., Filipino Employment Personnel Instruc-
    tions (FEPI)). App’x 10–11; App’x 14–18.
    Mr. Dullas does not challenge these factual findings.
    Despite lacking “covered service,” he nevertheless argues
    that an OPM regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), retroac-
    tively implemented automatic coverage under the CSRS
    for all Federal employees who rendered service between
    1920 and 1982. The pertinent regulation states:
    Periods of creditable civilian service performed by
    an employee or Member after July 31, 1920, but
    before October 1, 1982, for which retirement de-
    ductions have not been taken shall be included in
    determining length of service to compute annui-
    ty . . . ; however, if the employee, Member, or sur-
    vivor does not elect either to complete the deposit
    described by section 8334(c) of title 5, United
    States Code, or to eliminate the service from an-
    nuity computation, his or her annuity is reduced
    by 10 percent of the amount which should have
    been deposited (plus interest) for the period of
    noncontributory service.
    5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a) (emphasis added).
    Mr. Dullas’ argument that § 831.303(a) allows him to
    convert his “creditable” service into “covered” service is
    unavailing. The regulation on which Mr. Dullas relies
    only applies to “an employee,” and allows periods of
    “creditable civilian service” to be “included in determining
    length of service to compute annuity.” 
    Id. In other
    words,
    it addresses whether service is creditable and allows an
    employee who qualifies for an annuity to include certain
    periods of creditable service in the calculation. It does not
    convert non-covered service, such as that of Mr. Dullas,
    DULLAS   v. OPM                                           5
    into covered service. Nor does it otherwise render Mr.
    Dullas eligible for a CSRS annuity. See Hocson v. Office
    of Pers. Mgmt., 662 F. App’x 922, 924 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
    (“There is no statutory support for [appellant’s] argu-
    ments that § 831.303(a) retroactively converted creditable
    service into covered service or otherwise changed who
    qualified for an annuity.”); see also Dela 
    Rosa, 583 F.3d at 765
    (holding that a former employee may “make a deposit
    only if that former employee is already covered by the
    CSRS.”).
    At all times, Mr. Dullas served in temporary and ex-
    cepted service indefinite positions that were excluded
    from the CSRS. Although Mr. Dullas may have had more
    than five years of creditable service, § 831.303(a) did not
    convert creditable excluded positions into CSRA covered
    service. The only effect of § 831.303(a) is to permit per-
    sons already covered by the CSRS to include certain
    service when calculating the annuity. Accordingly, the
    Board did not err in determining that Mr. Dullas served
    in positions that did not constitute covered service for
    CSRS eligibility purposes.
    We have considered Mr. Dullas’ additional arguments
    and conclude that they do not warrant a different result.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, this court affirms the
    Board’s decision.
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2017-1683

Judges: Moore, Chen, Hughes

Filed Date: 9/7/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024