Case: 23-1643 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAMIAN F. SENENCE,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2023-1643
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-0831-16-0803-I-1.
______________________
Decided: December 5, 2023
______________________
DAMIAN F. SENENCE, San Narciso, Zambales, Philip-
pines, pro se.
DANIEL BERTONI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before CUNNINGHAM, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1643 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2023
2 SENENCE v. OPM
PER CURIAM.
Damian F. Senence appeals from a final decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) denying his
request for retirement benefits under the Civil Service Re-
tirement System (“CSRS”). We affirm.
I
Mr. Senence was employed by the United States De-
partment of the Navy in the Philippines from 1966 to 1992.
S. Appx. 35. 1 During this time, he served in various roles,
including as an aircraft mechanic inspector from 1979 until
1992. Id. When Mr. Senence retired in 1992, he was eligi-
ble for retirement benefits in the form of a lump-sum pay-
ment under the Filipino Employment Personnel
Instructions (“FEPI”). S. Appx. 3, 42. Years later, in 2014,
Mr. Senence applied for deferred retirement under the
CSRS, pursuant to the Civil Service Retirement Act (
5
U.S.C. § 8331 et seq.) (“CSRA”). S. Appx. 4. The United
States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denied his
claim, explaining that Mr. Senence “never served in a posi-
tion subject to the Civil Service Retirement Act.” S. Appx.
45.
Mr. Senence appealed OPM’s decision to the Board. In
its initial decision, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) de-
termined that Mr. Senence was not an employee eligible for
CSRS benefits because he did not meet the qualifications
for “covered” service. S. Appx. 7-8. To reach this conclu-
sion, the ALJ looked at Mr. Senence’s employment records
– called Standard Form 50s or “SF-50s” – and other evi-
dence of his employment with the Navy. Based on its re-
view, the ALJ found that Mr. Senence had only held “not-
to-exceed” or “indefinite” positions throughout his service.
Second, on each of his SF-50s, in the place to indicate which
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix sub-
mitted by the government. See ECF No. 13.
Case: 23-1643 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 12/05/2023
SENENCE v. OPM 3
retirement plan he was eligible for, the box for “other” or
“none” was checked. E.g., S. Appx. 37, 42. Additionally,
“[t]he record contain[ed] no evidence that deductions for
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) retirement bene-
fit contributions were ever withheld from Mr. Senence’s
pay.” S. Appx. 3. Finally, the ALJ pointed out that Mr.
Senence was entitled to retirement benefits under the
FEPI retirement plan.
Mr. Senence petitioned for review by a Board panel,
which affirmed. The panel pointed out that “[t]emporary
and indefinite appointments are excluded from CSRS cov-
erage” and Mr. Senence had not shown he had held any-
thing but a temporary or indefinite appointment. S. Appx.
24-25. It also noted that Mr. Senence had failed to allege
that CSRS retirement deductions had been withheld from
his pay.
Mr. Senence timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II
Our review of Board decisions is limited by statute. We
are required to affirm unless the Board’s judgment is
“found to be – (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discre-
tion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained
without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation
having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial ev-
idence.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see also Hayes v. Dep’t of Navy,
727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Substantial evi-
dence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Intel Corp. v.
PACT XPP Schweiz AG,
61 F.4th 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2023). The burden to show entitlement to benefits in the
federal civil service retirement system rests with the appli-
cant. See Cheeseman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
791 F.2d 138,
141 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
III
Case: 23-1643 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 12/05/2023
4 SENENCE v. OPM
On appeal, Mr. Senence argues that he was an em-
ployee entitled to retirement benefits, based on various sec-
tions of the CSRA and certain regulations. He denies that
he was required to deposit portions of his paycheck into the
civil service retirement system in order to qualify for re-
tirement benefits. The government responds that Mr.
Senence is selectively isolating statutory and regulatory
sentences and interpreting them contrary to their plain
meaning in connection with the CSRA as a whole. It fur-
ther contends that the Board’s findings were supported by
substantial evidence.
“To qualify for a civil service retirement annuity, a gov-
ernment 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 Civil Service Retirement Act.” Quioc-
son v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (emphasis added); see also
5 U.S.C. § 8333. Credita-
ble service under the CSRA – defined at
5 C.F.R.
§ 831.303(a) – is different from covered service, which is de-
scribed in
5 U.S.C. § 8333. See Rosete v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
48 F.3d 514, 516 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Covered service only in-
cludes an appointment that is subject to the CSRA and for
which an employee must deposit part of his or her pay into
the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.”) (em-
phasis added). Service “under temporary and indefinite
appointments . . . is excluded from CSRS retirement cover-
age under OPM regulations,” and, therefore, is not covered
service. Quiocson,
490 F.3d at 1360; see also
5 C.F.R.
§ 831.201(a). Other indications that service is not covered
service include information on appointment forms and the
failure of the employing agency to withhold CSRS retire-
ment contributions. See Quiocson,
490 F.3d at 1360. More-
over, if an employee receives benefits under a non-CSRS
plan, this may be additional evidence that the employee did
not engage in covered service for purposes of the CSRA.
See
5 U.S.C. § 8331(1)(ii); see also
5 C.F.R. § 831.201(h); De
Case: 23-1643 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 12/05/2023
SENENCE v. OPM 5
Guzman v. Dep’t of Navy,
231 Ct. Cl. 1005, 1005-06 (1982)
(holding that employee covered by collective bargaining
agreement between Federation of Filipino Employees As-
sociation and U.S. was not in covered position for purposes
of CSRS).
We find that the Board’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence. The Board reviewed Mr. Senence’s
employment records and made factual findings regarding
the nature of his employment. In doing so, the Board found
that Mr. Senence’s employment was made up of “tempo-
rary or indefinite appointments,” which were not, there-
fore, covered service. S. Appx. 7. The Board also observed
that Mr. Senence’s positions were covered by another re-
tirement plan, FEPI. Further, the record lacks evidence
that CSRS retirement contributions were ever withheld
from Mr. Senence’s pay. 2 While Mr. Senence points to ref-
erences to “full-time” and “permanent” positions in certain
of his employment records, the Board was free to credit (as
the ALJ did) Navy correspondence explaining that these
record entries “did not confer permanent employment for
retirement purposes” and that “permanent” FEPI employ-
ees were not covered by the CSRS. S. Appx. 8. In any
event, it was for the Board to weigh all of the evidence be-
fore it to assess whether Mr. Senence met his burden to
2 Even if Mr. Senence is correct that his failure to con-
tribute to CSRS is not dispositive of whether he held a cov-
ered service position – and, as he points out, the CSRA
makes provision for retroactive contributions, see Opening
Br. at 7 (citing
5 U.S.C. § 8334(c)) – this would not suggest
the Board’s conclusion lacks substantial evidence or is oth-
erwise erroneous. As we explained in Quiocson,
490 F.3d
at 1360: “The absence of deductions is an indication that
an employee was not serving in a covered position. A ret-
roactive deposit does not convert a non-covered position
into a covered position.”
Case: 23-1643 Document: 29 Page: 6 Filed: 12/05/2023
6 SENENCE v. OPM
show he performed covered service. Substantial evidence,
as described by the Board in its decisions and by us here,
supports the Board’s determination that he failed to do so.
IV
We have considered Mr. Senence’s other arguments
and find them to be unavailing. Accordingly, for the rea-
sons stated, we affirm the Board’s dismissal of Mr.
Senence’s application.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
